- Microsoft Corporation v. X1 Discovery, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00253 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish a reason to combine the references or a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Mr. Haeberli’s formulation, finding it to be consistent with the evidence of record at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art and the ’035 patent. D.I. 8. Following a review of the full record, we agree with Mr. Haeberli’s statement that Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is “not meaningfully different” from Mr. Haeberli’s for the purposes of this proceeding. We continue to view Mr. Haeberli’s proposed definition as consistent with the ’035 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below. However, our analysis of the issues below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition. C.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In our Institution Decision, we construed the claim term “string separator character” to mean “a single-character string separator,” and invited the parties to raise any issues they had with this construction in future briefing. D.I. 10. Patent Owner subsequently indicated that it agreed with this construction. See PO Resp. 8. Petitioner did not raise any objections to this construction (see generally Pet. Reply). Accordingly, and in the absence of any dispute, we construe “string separator character” to mean “a single-character string separator.” Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner ask us to adopt explicit constructions of any other claim terms. See Pet. 14, PO Resp. 8–9; Pet. Reply 1–23; PO Sur-reply 2–7. We also find that the issues in dispute can be resolved without construing any other claim terms. Accordingly, we do not adopt explicit constructions of any other claim terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms … that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“search functionalities disclosed in the Lotus Notes References and Raskin are materially different in such a way as to render combining them anything but simple and straightforward.” See PO Resp. 26–27. Indeed, Petitioner has given little or no explanation of how one of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have taken the “idea of incremental search” and applied it to Lotus Notes. See, e.g., Ex. 2021, 116:20–117:17 (Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Terveen, testifying that “Raskin is not explicitly talking about searching across a set of documents, but the teaching that I relied on in general from Raskin is the idea of incremental searching,” and “I did not have to talk about implementation level details or incorporating a particular implementation. That wasn’t necessary for my opinion.”). Raskin simply does not teach a mode of incremental searching that applies to the query-style, document-finding searching of the type Petitioner cites from Lotus Notes. See generally Ex. 1021; see also Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 34–35 (Mr. Haeberli contrasting the Lotus Notes searches cited by Petitioner with Raskin’s searches). Raskin even states that it is “difficult or impossible to implement incremental searches” using interface-building tools. Ex. 1021, 126; Ex. 2020 ¶ 60 (Mr. Haeberli’s testimony that this passage of Raskin “directly undermines Dr. Terveen’s suggestion that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Raskin’s incremental search approach in the Lotus Notes system”).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,370,035 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,370,035 - Microsoft Corporation v. X1 Discovery, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00254 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because Petitioner failed to establish motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“29. In my opinion, the POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the Asserted Patents would have had a (1) a Bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as computer science, electric engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and (2) have 2–4 years of experience in working with computing devices and have an understanding of indexed search systems utilized by such computing devices. 30. I am aware that Petitioner has provided its own definition . . . . 31. I believe Petitioner’s definition is not meaningfully different from my definition of a POSITA. My opinions would not change regardless of which definition of POSITA is applied. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–31. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Mr. Haeberli’s formulation, finding it to be consistent with the evidence then of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’490 patent. Dec. 9. Following a review of the full record, we agree with Mr. Haeberli’s statement that Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is “not meaningfully different” from Mr. Haeberli’s for the purposes of this proceeding. We continue to view Mr. Haeberli’s proposed definition as consistent with the ’490 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below. However, our analysis of the issues below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In our Decision on Institution, the only term that we found it necessary to construe was the term “string separator character” in claim 1. We preliminarily construed this term to mean “a single-character string separator.” Dec. 11, 30–31. We invited the parties to address the appropriateness of this construction over the course of the trial. Id. at 11, 31. In its briefing, Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s preliminary construction, arguing that it is “consistent with the intrinsic evidence.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, claims 8 and 20). Patent Owner further argues that a person of ordinary skill would have understood a multi-character Boolean operator such as “AND” to be “a search syntax instruction rather than a string separator.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1059, 162; Ex. 2001 ¶ 112). Petitioner’s Reply Brief does not address the issue of claim construction. See generally Reply Br.; see also Pet. 11 (“Unless otherwise noted, Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms below.”). Following our review of the full record, we determine that it is not necessary to construe this or any other claim term for the purposes of this Decision.2 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.). In our analysis below, we interpret the language of the claims according to its plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Having reviewed the evidence of record, we find Mr. Haeberli’s testimony to be more persuasive and better supported by the evidence. According to Dr. Terveen, “[r]obust programming languages such as C and C++, together with well-developed operating system and UI frameworks, . . . allowed an ordinary programmer to build a UI that supported incremental searching, as evidenced by the numerous prior art systems that implemented such functionality, including Entourage, Eudora, Emacs, Canon Cat, SwyftWare, and others. Ex. 1100 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1004, 8–9, 161; Ex. 1021, 125, 127, 129; Ex. 1039, 102–103; Ex. 1043, 385–389). The relevant question, though, is not whether it would have been possible to build a user interface that supported incremental search, but whether it would have been “simple and straightforward” to execute an incremental search of multiple partial search strings on large, indexed multi-file databases such as those described in the Lotus Notes references, as Dr. Terveen alleges. None of the prior art discussed in the “State of the Art” section of Dr. Terveen’s initial declaration, taken individually or together, discloses incrementally searching a plurality of files using two partial search strings. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–33, 37, 40; Ex. 2001 ¶ 100. Thus, creating a user interface might be “simple,” but the evidence suggests that the back-end execution of an incremental search is not. See, e.g., Ex. 1021, 126 (Raskin, concluding that “almost all interface-building tools make it easy to implement delimited searches and difficult or impossible to implement incremental searches”).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“different approach from that taken in Lotus Notes. The difference between Raskin’s sequential scanning method and the index-based system described in Wilcox is that sequential scanning by definition can only scan one document at a time as each document is loaded into a “buffer.” See, e.g., Ex. 2020 ¶ 35. Lotus Notes, however, only needs to load the index into memory for a user to be able to locate the single index entry identifying all instances of an indexed term across all indexed files. In fact, Raskin acknowledges that indexing may be necessary to maintain an acceptable response time. Ex. 1021, 132 n.10; see also id. at 129 (indexing speeds search times). Mr. Haeberli’s third and final reason for concluding that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Raskin’s incremental search with Lotus Notes is that at the time using incremental searches would have presented “extreme technical difficulties.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 101. Here again we find Mr. Haeberli’s explanation more persuasive than Dr. Terveen’s opinion that combining the teachings from Raskin with Lotus Notes’ teachings “would have required only simple and straightforward software modifications.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. According to Mr. Haeberli, “there are serious technical challenges with implementing the complex search strategies of the challenged claims in the systems on which Dr. Terveen relies.” Id. ¶ 96. As Patent Owner argues: searching across a set of files to find specific files requires the system to identify which files are in the set, access those files (which are often not loaded in active memory), search their contents, determine which files contain matches to search criteria, and then present results to the user; all tasks that do not exist in the same way (or at all) for a search confined to text in a single open file already loaded into memory. Sur-Reply 9; see Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 15, 35–36. There would have been other challenges as well. For example, “[t]he type of sequential scanning typically employed to search a single open document is very time and resource intensive if employed to search a large set of documents.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 15. Also, “[i]mplementing incremental search in the Lotus Notes indexed system would necessarily require a larger index, which would slow down, rather than increase the search speed.” PO Resp. 23; see Ex. 2020 ¶ 33. Finally, Raskin itself concludes that “even if incremental searching is advantageous, ‘almost all interface-building tools make it easy to implement delimited searches and difficult or impossible to implement incremental searches.’” Ex. 2001 ¶ 96 (emphasis added by Mr. Haeberli) (quoting Ex. 1021, 126). In short, Mr. Haeberli presents three significant reasons why there would have been no motivation or expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wilcox with those of Raskin. Dr. Terveen’s opinion to the contrary, on the other hand, is not supported by evidence. Dr. Terveen testifies that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to perform Lotus Notes’ multi-string search incrementally for the reasons stated by Raskin: speed, effectiveness, and ease of use.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 125–127). The evidence, however, not only fails to support Dr. Terveen’s testimony, but also demonstrates that one attempting to make the proposed combination would not have reasonably expected the proposed combination to result in greater speed or effectiveness.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 10,552,490 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,552,490 - Microsoft Corp. v. X1 Discovery, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00255 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because Petitioner did not establish a persuasive reason to combine the cited teachings with adequate factual support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not comment on Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill, or offer its own formulation in its Response. Patent Owner’s declarant, however, states: 29. In my opinion, the POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the Asserted Patents would have had a (1) a Bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as computer science, electric engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and (2) have 2–4 years of experience in working with computing devices and have an understanding of indexed search systems utilized by such computing devices. 30. I am aware that [Petitioner] has provided its own definition . . . . 31. I believe [Petitioner’s] definition is not meaningfully different from my definition of a POSITA. My opinions would not change regardless of which definition of POSITA is applied. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–31. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation, finding it to be consistent with the evidence of record at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art and the ’139 patent. Dec. on Inst. 8. Following a review of the full record, we agree that Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is “not meaningfully different” from Patent Owner’s for the purposes of this proceeding. We continue to view Patent Owner’s proposed definition as consistent with the ’139 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below. However, our analysis of the issues below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“Petitioner does not assert any explicit claim constructions. Pet. 12. In our Decision on Institution, the Board construed “string separator character” as “a single-character string separator.” Dec. on Inst. 10, 28–29. Patent Owner explicitly agreed with this construction in its Response (Resp. 8–9), and Petitioner offered no further comment in its Reply. Although no claim construction issue is squarely before us now, we maintain our prior construction of “string separator character,” and do not construe any further limitations. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that a problem with Petitioner’s combination is that it proposes to take the idea of incremental searching from Raskin and divorce it from Raskin’s teaching of incremental searching. See PO Resp. 20 (arguing, “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] must consider all the teachings of a reference, and not pick out general ‘concepts’ disclosed in the art without considering the context in which they are used”); see also id. at 17–28 (setting out the whole argument); Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 39–62 (Patent Owner’s declarant explaining why Petitioner’s approach is “technically problematic”). Raskin’s incremental search is tied to finding and moving to character strings within a document. Ex. 1021, 125. For example, if a user were to type a string that was found in the text, “the instance [of that string] is selected and the cursor placed immediately after the end of the selection.” Id. The cursor can move about the text as characters of the search string are added or deleted. Id. at 125–126. Thus, Raskin discloses in-text search, even when searching across documents. Id. at 132 (“After the local document has been completely searched the search then proceeds through the following documents until the end of the folder is reached, when the search continues from the beginning of the first document in the folder until the current, already searched document is reached. After cycling through the folder, the next larger domain is treated similarly, and so forth.”). Raskin even distinguishes its text-finding search from Lotus Notes’ document-finding search, stating that “[i]t is usually easy to tell in what domain you are searching, because you see the results in context; what you see is not just a list of file names, as with many present search systems.” Id. (emphasis added); see also PO Sur-reply 16 (citing the same page and arguing that “Raskin recommends doing the opposite of what is claimed”). This context gives credence to Patent Owner’s argument that “the search functionalities disclosed in the Lotus Notes References and Raskin are materially different in such a way as to render combining them anything but simple and straightforward.” PO Resp. 26–27. Indeed, Petitioner has given little-to-no explanation of how one takes the “idea of incremental search” and applies it to Lotus Notes. Ex. 2021, 116:20–117:17 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that “Raskin is not explicitly talking about searching across a set of documents [at once], but the teaching that I relied on in general from Raskin is the idea of incremental searching,” and “I did not have to talk about implementation level details or incorporating a particular implementation. That wasn’t necessary for my opinion.”). Raskin does not teach a mode of incremental searching that applies to the query-style, document-finding searching in Lotus Notes. See generally Ex. 1021; see also Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 34–35 (Patent Owner’s declarant contrasting Lotus Notes and Raskin). Raskin even states that it is “difficult or impossible to implement incremental searches” using standard interface-building tools. Ex. 1021, 126; Ex. 2020 ¶ 60 (Patent Owner’s declarant stating that this passage “directly undermines [Petitioner’s declarant’s] suggestion that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to implement Raskin’s incremental search approach in the Lotus Notes system”).” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Entourage and what True is doing and how it is doing it, Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to use True’s two search strings “to provide more targeted searching, as was common sense and well known in the art.” Pet. 60 (citing Pet. 8–9; Ex. 1057, 27); see also id. at 56, 66 (similar). But we are not persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that True provides more targeted searching or better search results when finding documents. True itself appears silent on the issue. Petitioner cites Exhibit 1057, but all that stands for is the general premise that doing a Boolean AND search in a Web search engine reduces the number of search results. Ex. 1057, 27. Petitioner does not allege that True uses a Boolean AND search of the kind discussed in Exhibit 1057. Thus, the statement in Exhibit 1057 regarding reducing the number of search results is tied to a manner of performing Boolean searches, something Petitioner does not use to modify Entourage. In other words, Exhibit 1057 is of little relevance to the Entourage-True combination, and does not serve as a factual underpinning in support of Petitioner’s reasoning. Petitioner also cites to several other references that discuss Boolean-style searches, but these generic background disclosures do not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to use one or more features of the probabilistic-based interest level search from True in a document-finding application like Entourage. See Pet. 8–9 (string citing over a dozen references with no pinpoint citations). Accordingly, there appears to be little reason, absent hindsight, to incorporate some aspect of a text-as-proxy-for-sounds system like True into Entourage’s filter or Find feature to provide more targeted searching. Accord Ex. 2020 ¶ 120 (“Patent Owner’s declarant stating that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] working on the problem of searching large document collections would not look to [True,] a system designed for navigating imprecise transcriptions of single audio files, as the technical approaches and constraints are entirely different”). Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that another problem with Petitioner’s combination is that True does not appear to actually provide more targeted or better searching. PO Resp. 59–60 (“True’s search capabilities are inherently imprecise”) (citing Ex. 1009, 1:18–27; Ex. 2001 ¶ 137); see also Ex. 1009, 4:31–37 (explaining that True uses a speech recognition system that calculates confidence levels based on a “% likelihood that [a word] corresponds to the portion of the digitized audio [at a given time]”); Ex. 2020 ¶ 114 (Patent Owner’s declarant stating that “the purpose of True is not to definitively locate where a search string actually appears”). Petitioner does not explain what about True would make some aspect of Entourage’s filter or Find features more targeted. Even if it was known to use Boolean AND searches, for example, Petitioner is not citing True to modify Entourage to have a Boolean search. True uses an “interest level” search instead, which is more inclusive than a Boolean AND search (it adds together hits for “queen” OR “mother,” and may return hits containing neither). Ex. 1009, 5:29–50, Fig. 2 (showing results list 22 having several results which do not indicate any of the searched-for words); see Ex. 2020 ¶ 116 (Patent Owner’s declarant analyzing True’s interest level search would also include “text [that] does not show the query word”). Petitioner does not appear to be proposing to incorporate an interest level search or a Boolean-style search into the filter or Find features, and we are not persuaded that True in fact provides more targeted searching. Even if the quality of the transcripts in True happened to be perfect (see Pet. Reply 10, arguing that “True describes searching a text file that has 100% accuracy”), the fact remains that True attempts to find text in particular time windows using an interest level search based on the probability that a word or words were spoken in a given time window, which is completely different from what Entourage is doing with its search (see Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 114–116, 121). In its Reply, Petitioner states that True teaches “an incremental search for multiple search strings entered in a search field.” Pet. Reply. 10. This is a broad generalization of what True does, made with the benefit of hindsight, but as we have just explained, True’s interest level search is different from the kinds of searches done in Entourage or even the Boolean-style web searches performed in the background references. See, e.g., Ex. 1057, 27. This means it is not a matter of taking one known teaching and simply applying it to another system. True is doing something different, and it’s not clear how True’s search would actually provide “precise, targeted search results” (Pet. Reply 3) given that True appears to suggest a less-targeted search than claimed (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 29:62–63, claiming “identifying one or more documents included in both the first one or more documents and the second one or more documents”). See also Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 135 (Patent Owner’s declarant stating that “Entourage and True are directed to completely different purposes”), 136–138 (further analysis); Ex. 2020 ¶ 114 (stating that “the purpose of True is not to definitively locate where a search string actually appears”), ¶ 116 (stating that True returns text that does not even have the search word). True does not teach, suggest, or support Petitioner’s general premise that there is a benefit for an incremental search for multiple search strings entered in a search field or that such searches would provide precise, targeted search results. The problem with Petitioner’s analysis becomes more apparent when the Petition turns to the “string separator character” of claim 1. Notably, it is the claimed string separator character that converts a field with a single search string into a field with two search strings. See, e.g., Ex. 1098, 37:12– 41–4 (deposition of Patent Owner’s declarant) (discussing that a string separator character is what instructs the computer to break up one string of characters into separate strings of characters). Thus, one cannot discuss the string separator character apart from the limitations requiring first and second search strings in a single search field. Nevertheless, Petitioner treats the “string separator character” in isolation. See Pet. 61–62. Petitioner’s reason for modifying one or both of Entourage’s filter and/or Find feature(s) to have a string separator character is because “it was common to [use string separator characters].” Id. at 61. However, even if something was known, it does not mean it is obvious to incorporate it into one or both of these features in Entourage. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”). Adding a string separator character to divide a single string into two separately searched strings changes how the software would function. See Ex. 1098, 39:22–40:8 (Patent Owner’s declarant testifying that software has to look for a string separator character in order to know multiple search strings were entered in the field). The space character in “Orson Welles,” used in the Advanced Find example in Barber, for example, is not a string separator character because one looking to exclude hits with “Orson Welles” is searching for the string “Orson Welles”—the space is another character in the name string whose inclusion serves a specific semantic purpose (delineating between a first and last name). See Ex. 2001 ¶ 151 (“there is no evidence that when a user types ‘Orson Welles’ into this Find command text box that a search is performed on ‘Orson’ and ‘Welles’ separately as opposed to searching on the full text string ‘Orson Welles.’”); Ex. 1006, 387 (discussing how exclude the specific person “Orson Welles” from the search, not to find someone having the first name “Orson” or the last name “Welles”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 144 (Petitioner’s declarant implicitly acknowledging that the space in “Orson Welles” is not a string separator character). Thus, the space character in “Orson Welles” does not signal to the computer to break the string up into two parts at the space and perform” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 9,633,139 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,633,139 - Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00115 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 10, 11, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28–30, 32, 33, and 35 are unpatentable; claim 15 is not shown unpatentable, based on the four asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Wieselthaler’s Declaration (Exhibit 1041), portions of Mr. Crosby’s Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1042), portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Wieselthaler (Exhibit 2028), and the exhibits “upon which that testimony is based” (Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050). Mot. 1. According to Patent Owner, the Motion was made “to preserve objections previously made in the record.” Id. (citations omitted). Patent Owner did not timely move to strike any of the evidence at issue as being outside the scope of reply evidence. Patent Owner asserts that because an inter partes review must be based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications (citing 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), the testimony of Mr. Crosby and Dr. Wieselthaler concerning “various physical devices allegedly known” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is inadmissible, along with all of the exhibits (consisting of printed materials such a journal abstracts, press releases, and papers) related to those physical devices. Id. at 3–4; see also Mot. Reply 1–4 (arguing that “devices that Petitioner’s witnesses assert were in public use prior to the claimed inventions, are not prior art that can form the basis of an inter partes review”). According to Patent Owner, Dr. Wieselthaler was unable to “link two of these physical devices to the printed prior art asserted in this [inter partes review], but those attempts fell apart during his cross examination.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner further reasons that because the evidence “cannot be the basis” of an inter partes review, it “has probable,” “is irrelevant and not admissible,” “presents substantial danger of confusing the issues, causing undue delay, and wasting time in this trial,” and “are not ‘based on sufficient facts[,] the product of reliable principles and methods[, or] ‘a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.’” Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401–403, 702) (modification in original). With regard to Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Patent Owner identifies no plausible legal theory for their inadmissibility based on the contention that they discuss physical devices. See Mot. Resp. 3. We also agree with Petitioner that the exhibits are not “the basis for any ground” asserted in this proceeding, and may be properly relied upon by Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby as support for their rebuttal testimony directed to Patent Owner’s arguments disputing Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine the prior art relied upon in the instituted grounds. See id. at 3–4. In regard to the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and” slip op. at 80
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“‘electronics for power and control’”). According to Mr. Crosby, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood based on the disclosure of this setup that these speed and motor parameters were monitored by a sensor providing feedback to the controller.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 725. Mr. Crosby identifies no support for this opinion, which we give little weight to. The mere fact that Bourque’s pump used software to control speed and motor parameters does not show that Bourque used “one or more sensors” to provide feedback signals to the external control unit. Indeed, Petitioner fails to identify any evidence that Bourque used any “sensor” to monitor “speed and motor parameters.” Mr. Crosby also states that “[e]ach of the ‘ultrasonic flow probe’ and the ‘solid-state catheter-type pressure transducer’ described in [Bourque] is a ‘sensor’ as recited in Claim 33 that provides feedback signals to the external control unit (e.g., ‘electronics for power and control’ and ‘data acquisition’).” Id. ¶¶ 581, 726. Mr. Crosby’s opinion is again unsupported by the evidence, because, as explained above, there is no teaching in Bourque that either the “ultrasonic flow probe” or the “pressure transducers” used in the “in vitro characterization” studies were part of the heart assist pump device. Based on our review and consideration of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence directed to claim 11, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted combination of Bourque and Wampler teaches or suggests each of the limitations of dependent claim 11. We reach the same conclusion for the same reasons with regard to claim 33.” slip op. at 48
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “magneto coupling” Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a second magnetic device “positioned” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,674,517 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,674,517 - Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00096 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Schima and Akamatsu; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Fed. R. Evid. 702 serves “a ‘gatekeeping role,’ the objective of which is to ensure that expert testimony admitted into evidence is both reliable and relevant.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). There is no question that the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby is relevant to the asserted motivation to combine and reliable, only whether it becomes “not relevant” or “unreliable,” in light of limited scope upon which grounds of unpatentability may be based under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), because the testimony is based on, or supported by, knowledge of physical devices and publications discussing physical devices. Patent Owner directs us to no support for the notion that an expert’s testimony in an inter partes review must be limited to only the prior art relied upon as grounds for unpatentability and may not take into account any knowledge of, or publications concerning, other “physical devices” that would have been known to a person of ordinary skill at the relevant time. See generally Mot.25 In sum, we find that Patent Owner has 25 Patent Owner improperly asserts for the first time in its Reply in support of the Motion that “Petitioner in this case is improperly relying on non-prior art evidence.” Mot. Reply 3. This argument was not made in the Motion, and Patent Owner fails to identify what “non-prior art evidence” it seeks to exclude. We recognize that Petitioner appears to raise the argument that “non-prior art evidence” may be relied upon by an expert, but Petitioner also fails to identify what evidence it is referring to and that argument was not responsive to any issue Patent Owner raised in the Motion. See Mot. Resp. 5. To the extent the Parties intend “non-prior art evidence” to refer to the testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby, we view the issue as pertaining to the weight afforded that testimony, in light of the supporting evidence relied upon, rather than one of admissibility. for the exclusion of evidence in this proceeding and deny the Motion.” slip op. at 83
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“D. Claim Construction In this proceeding we construe claims using the same claim” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“5. Rationale in Support of Asserted Combination Petitioner shows, and there is no dispute, that Bourque and Wampler” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 11,351,356 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,351,356 - Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SANo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00116 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–5, 7, 10, 16–24, 26, and 28 not unpatentable under any of the four § 103 grounds because the petition failed to prove required limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find that the ’077 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of skill reflected in these references and in the ’077 patent is consistent with the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, which we adopt. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We further find that our determinations in this Decision would be the same if we were to instead adopt the level of skill proposed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that “axially adjacent” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of “adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 73–79 (Mr. Leschinsky addressing the claim term “axially adjacent” and explaining that a person of ordinary skill would have understood it to mean that the “first magnetic device and the rotor are ‘adjacent’ to one another, i.e., disposed next to one another, as measured along the central axis about which the rotor spins”). Patent Owner’s construction also is supported by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Crosby, who agrees that “adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis,” could be “one meaning,” along with “many other meanings.” Ex. 2014,8 19:13–20:11. In sum, consistent with our Institution Decision, we conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of “axially adjacent” is “at a position adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis.” See Dec. on Inst. 12.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Second, for the reasons below, we determine that we do not need to construe any other claim terms to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. As we discuss above, we find “axially adjacent” to mean “adjacent to one another as measured along a central arguments that rest on Petitioner’s assertion that in the Parallel Litigation, Patent Owner “asserts that a magnetic element sealed within a rotor is . . . ‘axially adjacent.’” Id. at 20–21, n.6 (citing Ex. 1019, 5–7). In particular, we find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that Wampler teaches that magnetic pieces 88 (“a first magnetic device”) “are inserted [‘axially adjacent’] in…the impeller.” Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 80, Fig. 13; Ex. 1003 ¶ 174). We also find unavailing Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler’s Figure 13 and Mr. Crosby’s cited testimony that “the ‘impeller’ and ‘magnetic pieces’ are axially adjacent—situated next to each other on the same axis.” Id. at 21–22 (annotating Ex. 1008, Fig. 13; citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 174–176). Petitioner does not sufficiently explain this argument, but appears to conflate being adjacent along a central axis with about an axis. Id. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that under Patent Owner’s construction, Wampler also teaches this limitation, because Patent Owner “concedes that ‘axially adjacent’ components ‘have positioning that is next to one another, perhaps touching or sharing a common side, when measured along the axis.’” Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing PO Resp. 14). Petitioner mischaracterizes Patent Owner’s arguments and ignores Patent Owner’s showing that “axially adjacent” components are “distinct from components that are aligned with one another such that they overlap or occupy the same portion of an axis upon which they are positioned.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 78). For the preceding reasons, Petitioner fails to show by a” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,754,077 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,754,077 - Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00114 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under §103; claim 20 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyDenied
“IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Wieselthaler’s Declaration (Exhibit 1041), portions of Mr. Crosby’s Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1042), portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Wieselthaler (Exhibit 2028), and the exhibits “upon which that testimony is based” (Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050). Mot. 1. According to Patent Owner, the Motion was made “to preserve objections previously made in the record.” Id. (citations omitted). Patent Owner did not timely move to strike any of the evidence at issue as being outside the scope of reply evidence. Patent Owner asserts that because an inter partes review must be based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications (citing 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), the testimony of Mr. Crosby and Dr. Wieselthaler concerning “various physical devices allegedly known” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is inadmissible, along with all of the exhibits (consisting of printed materials such a journal abstracts, press releases, and papers) related to those physical devices. Id. at 3–4; see also Mot. Reply 1–4 (arguing that “devices that Petitioner’s witnesses assert were the basis of an inter partes review”). According to Patent Owner, Dr. Wieselthaler was unable to “link two of these physical devices to the printed prior art asserted in this [inter partes review], but those attempts fell apart during his cross examination.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner further reasons that because the evidence “cannot be the basis” of an inter partes review, it “has no tendency to make any fact of consequence in this trial more or less probable,” “is irrelevant and not admissible,” “presents substantial danger of confusing the issues, causing undue delay, and wasting time in this trial,” and “are not ‘based on sufficient facts[,] the product of reliable principles and methods[, or] ‘a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.’” Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401–403, 702) (modification in original). With regard to Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Patent Owner identifies no plausible legal theory for their inadmissibility based on the contention that they discuss physical devices. See Mot. Resp. 3. We also agree with Petitioner that the exhibits are not “the basis for any ground” asserted in this proceeding, and may be properly relied upon by Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby as support for their rebuttal testimony directed to Patent Owner’s arguments disputing Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine the prior art relied upon in the instituted grounds. See id. at 3–4. In regard to the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and” slip op. at 77
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“1. “magneto coupling” Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a second magnetic device . . . positioned to magnetically drive rotation of the magnetically driven rotor via a magneto coupling with the first magnetic device.” Ex. 1001, 5:34–37. Claim 11 recites, in relevant part, “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor so as to magnetically drive rotation of the magnetically driven rotor relative to the one or more walls via a magneto coupling with the first magnetic device.” Id. at 6:42–48. Petitioner argues that “magneto coupling” means “a transfer of torque from one rotating permanent magnetic component to another rotating permanent magnetic component via a magnetic field.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–87). According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with the ’879 patent, which describes “a coupling between two rotating ‘bar magnets’—a drive wheel rotates one bar magnet which causes another bar magnet (connected to a rotor) to rotate.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–55 (analyzing Ex. 1001, 2:28–52, 4:44–64, Fig. 2)). Patent Owner argues that “magneto coupling” should be afforded “its plain and ordinary meaning, which would encompass a magnetic coupling through both rotating magnets and the use of a rotating magnetic Owner directs us to the testimony of Mr. Leschinsky, who explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’879 patent to use “magneto coupling” to generally describe “a way to couple the rotor to a drive element while sealing the two from one another and avoiding use of a direct mechanical coupling.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 67. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner provides no recognizable basis for limiting the plain meaning of magnetic coupling to one type of magnet and excluding another type of magnet.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc., v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989–992 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not provide a sufficient basis for limiting the plain meaning of “magneto coupling.” That the ’879 patent describes embodiments using bar magnets does not serve to require the use of permanent magnets for the recited “magneto coupling.” See Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”)). Moreover, the claim language here is not so limited. 13 Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on Wampler and Bourque depend on the disclosure only of electromagnetic drives in each reference, implying that “Petitioner does not believe its own proposed narrower construction.” PO Resp. 6; see also Pet. 8 (Petitioner alleging that in the Parallel Proceeding Patent Owner “conflates ‘magneto coupling’ . . . with a stator drive using a stationary electromagnet, instead of a rotating magnet, to rotate the rotor magnet,” and asserting that as the basis for Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler and Bourque as teaching a “magneto coupling” in this proceeding (citing Ex. 1019, 7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87)).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableUnpatentable
“reasons discussed above. See supra Section III.D.3. Accordingly, because Petitioner’s contentions are premised on an unsupported claim construction that we reject, Petitioner fails to show how Wampler teaches or suggests “a magnetically driven rotor . . . axially adjacent to a first magnet device,” as required by claims 1 and 11, as well as by claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14– 16, and 18–20, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 11. In its Reply, Petitioner suggests that “[u]nder [Patent Owner’s] construction from the [Patent Owner Response], Wampler also teaches or suggests this limitation,” because Patent Owner “concedes [that] ‘axially adjacent’ components ‘have” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 11,572,879 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,572,879 - Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SAAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00112 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 10, 11, 14, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Schima and Akamatsu; the other asserted grounds were not established.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“sufficient basis for limiting the plain meaning of “magneto coupling.” That the ’357 patent describes embodiments using bar magnets does not serve to require the use of permanent magnets for the recited “magneto coupling.” See Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”)). Moreover, the claim language here is not so limited. 11 Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on Wampler and Bourque depend on the disclosure only of electromagnetic drives in each reference, implying that “Petitioner does not believe its own proposed narrower construction.” PO Resp. 6; see also Pet. 8 (Petitioner alleging that in the Parallel Proceeding Patent Owner “conflates ‘magneto coupling’ . . . with a stator drive using a stationary electromagnet, instead of a rotating magnet, to rotate the rotor magnet,” and asserting that as the basis for Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler and Bourque as teaching a “magneto coupling” in this proceeding (citing Ex. 1019, 9–11; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87)). distinguished “magneto coupling” drives from drives using stators. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1011, 1 (explaining that the rotating field is generated by rotating magnets in a magnetic coupling pump and by electric stator windings in a stator pump)). Petitioner does not explain how this cited reference evidences that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “magneto coupling” requires rotating permanent magnets. At most, this reference teaches an example device that provides “magneto coupling.” See Ex. 1011, 1. In sum, we agree with Patent Owner that “magneto coupling,” consistent with our Institution Decision, encompasses generating a rotating field either by rotating magnets or by an electromagnet / stator. See Inst. Dec. 22” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“ignores the readily apparent fact that the lower arrow is placed in a location that misrepresents the minimum distance between the magnetically driven rotor and the second magnetic device to suggest that Wampler teaches “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor,” as required by claim 1. Petitioner purports to justify this misrepresentation by asserting that “the vast majority of the impeller 74 is spaced significantly farther apart from the stators 90 and 94 than the magnetic pieces 88 are positioned from the stators 90 and 94.” Id. at 33–34. Claim 1 does not recite any feature based on the “vast majority” of a component and it is readily apparent from Petitioner’s own annotated version of Figure 11a that the distance from both the “motor magnets [88]” and “impeller 74” to the “circular electromagnetic stator[s] [90 and 94]” is the same. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has provided a “misleading Figure with two red arrows denoting measurement distances to illustrate its incorrect view that the second magnetic device is farther from the magnetically driven rotor than from the first magnetic device.” PO Resp. 13–15 (providing an annotated version of Wampler’s Figure 11a with an orange arrow showing that in Wampler the distances from the second magnetic device to both the rotor and the first magnetic device are the same). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to show that Wampler teaches “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor.”” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“To orient the pump in the least obtrusive position (i.e., in the human configuration, as in Figure 3), it was decided that the rotational axis of the pump’s rotor should be perpendicular to the body’s long axis. That resulted in a sharp bend in the flow before it enters the impeller. To minimize the losses in this transition, the flow is slightly accelerated through this elbow. that this type of elbow [i.e., the elbow used with Bourque’s centrifugal pump] was unnecessary,” applying Wampler to Bourque would have improved “blood flow.” Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 418–419; Ex. 1007, 402; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76). As explained above, Wampler does not teach that “this type of elbow” was unnecessary. Bourque uses a centrifugal pump with an additional elbow specifically so that the centrifugal pump may be oriented “in the least obtrusive position.” Ex. 1007, 402. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion that eliminating the elbow from Bourque would improve “blood flow.” Mr. Crosby’s declaration provides no additional explanation or support to show how “blood flow” would have been improved. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 419. Nor does Mr. Crosby address the fact that Bourque expressly states that “flow is slightly accelerated” through the elbow to “minimize losses in this transition.” Ex. 1007, 402. Eliminating the elbow from Bourque, as Petitioner and Mr. Crosby propose, would mean the pump could no longer be placed in “the least obtrusive position” according to Bourque and there is no persuasive evidence that such a modification would improve blood flow.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 11,351,357 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,351,357 - Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SAAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00113 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under §103 over Schima and Akamatsu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reasons discussed above. See supra Section III.D.3. Accordingly, because Petitioner’s contentions are premised on an unsupported claim construction that we reject, Petitioner fails to show how Wampler teaches or suggests “a magnetically driven rotor . . . axially adjacent to a first magnet device,” as required by claim 1, as well as by claims 2–5, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17, which depend from claim 1. In its Reply, Petitioner suggests that “[u]nder [Patent Owner’s] construction from the [Patent Owner Response], Wampler also teaches or suggests this limitation,” because Patent Owner “concedes that ‘axially adjacent’ components ‘have positioning that is next to one another, perhaps touching or sharing a common side, when measured along the axis.’” Pet. Reply 11 (citing PO Resp. 17). Petitioner mischaracterizes Patent Owner’s arguments and ignores Patent Owner’s showing that “axially adjacent” components are “distinct from components that are aligned with one another such that they overlap or occupy the same portion of an axis” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“endeavor of the ’415 patent (i.e., “[a] method and device to assist the performance of a heart with at least one pump that is formed as a rotary pump and driven via magneto coupling”). See Ex. 1001, code (57); Ex. 1005 code (57); Ex. 1006, 1. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Schima and Akamatsu are analogous art to the ’415 patent.” slip op. at 71
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“endeavor of the ’415 patent (i.e., “[a] method and device to assist the performance of a heart with at least one pump that is formed as a rotary pump and driven via magneto coupling”). See Ex. 1001, code (57); Ex. 1005 code (57); Ex. 1006, 1. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Schima and Akamatsu are analogous art to the ’415 patent.” slip op. at 71
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“not identified a persuasive basis under any of the Federal Rules of Evidence for the exclusion of evidence in this proceeding and deny the Motion.” slip op. at 78
Patent outcomesUS 11,376,415 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,376,415 - Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2026 · IPR2024-01493 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, 14, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the references did not establish entirely crystallized CoFeB layers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’167 patent. Dec. on Inst. 6. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent.” Id. (citing Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25)). We also found that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’167 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Here, neither party sets forth any term for claim construction. Pet. 17; see generally PO Resp. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“In addition, we agree with Petitioner and find that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to replace either or both of Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR and lower Hf [(coupling field)] and Hc [(coercivity)].” Pet. 24, 27; Ex. 1055,30 2270 (“[I]t is natural to replace both the free and pinned layers to CoFeB to further increase the TMR value.”); Ex. 105631 ¶¶ 67–68 (“[B]oth the ferromagnetic layers 5, 7 are made of an FeCoB”32 for “improvement of the TMR ratio.”); Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 129, 132. We credit Dr. Bokor’s cited testimony as it is consistent with the cited evidence. Moreover, as Petitioner explains, “[r]esearchers were . . . interested in optimizing MTJs to improve MRAM performance,” and “[h]igher TMRs long promised improved performance for MRAM.” Pet. 6 30 Dexin Wang et al., 70% TMR at room temperature for SDT sandwich junctions with CoFeB as free and reference layers, 40 IEEE Trans. Magn. 2269–71 (July 2004). 31 US 2004/0136232 A1, published July 15, 2004, to Hosomi. 32 We find persuasive Dr. Bokor’s testimony that “a skilled artisan [would have] understood that CoFeB and FeCoB refer to the same alloy.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 121. 36–44) (emphasis omitted). In addition, we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to use Parkin’s CoFeB layer in place of Bowen’s electrodes to increase TMR” in light of Parkin’s explicit teachings. Pet. 27; Ex. 1024 ¶ 133. In particular, Parkin explicitly teaches that “very high TMR values are unexpectedly found for MTJs with highly textured (100) MgO tunnel barriers but with nominally amorphous storage layers.” Ex. 1062, 18:49–51. Notably, Parkin provides that “[t]he TMR of the device of F[igure] 3A is nearly two times higher than the highest TMR ever reported in prior art devices using conventional alumina tunnel barriers.” Id. at 18:63–65; Pet. 27. And as we discuss above, Parkin teaches that Figure 3A’s MTJ may be inverted, such that the storage layer is formed beneath the tunnel barrier. Ex. 1062, 17:7–10. In addition, we agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Bowen in the manner Petitioner proposes, as forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys was known. Pet. 28. As Petitioner argues, “forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys in MTJs was known and had been successfully done,” and thus we are persuaded that “one of skill would have found it to be a straightforward, predictable, and desirable improvement to TMR, Hf, and Hc in Bowen’s” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that Bowen teaches a “radically different manufacturing process[] from the claimed invention,” and that Bowen “went to heroic lengths to provide a crystalline (001) bottom electrode that provides a template for epitaxially growing a crystalline MgO(001) layer.” PO Resp. 2 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner describes in detail Bowen’s specific manufacturing process, including the specific structure of the MTJ manufactured, and argues the claimed invention differs. PO Resp. 30–33. These arguments are inapposite. Petitioner cites the specific teachings Petitioner relies on from Bowen, rather than adopting the entirety of Bowen’s process or MTJ. See, e.g., Pet. 21–36 (citing the portions of Bowen—that in combination with Parkin—teach claim 1). Petitioner is not “compelled to adopt every single aspect of [Bowen’s] teaching without the exercise of independent judgment.” Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that Bowen and Parkin each teach away from Petitioner’s combination because Parkin used boron to avoid crystalline electrodes whereas Bowen tried to achieve perfect crystalline electrodes. PO Resp. 4. As we discuss above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR. And Patent Owner does not identify in either reference a specific teaching that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise 35 M. Jimbo et al., Thermal stability of spin valves using amorphous CoFeB, 165 J. Magnetism & Magnetic Materials 308–11 (1997) (“Jimbo”). combination. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,680,167 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,680,167
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.