- Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the preliminary construction of “transaction data.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s embedded token, i.e., the output interface of the transaction card. See Ex. 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. Such claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment. We therefore do not limit the claimed “transaction data” and instead preliminarily construe that term as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. As described above, the claimed transaction data must come from the output interface of a transaction card. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“The dispute relates to whether the ’030 application describes the claimed “smart telephone” accepting transaction data and executing coded instructions to convert the analog signal to digital data representing transaction data as digital data. See Pet. 14–15, 19–27. In Petitioner’s view, that term is supported only by language added to the “Brief Summary of the Invention” during prosecution of the application resulting in the ’286 patent. Id. at 17. In contrast, argues Petitioner, the corresponding section of the ’030 application instead describes transmitting sound to a PC, not a smart telephone. Id. at 19–26. Patent Owner submits that the ’030 application describes generating sounds from a smart phone and using a “key jack sound pass generator” to communicate sounds. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner contends that the claim language is supported by disclosure of receiving the audio signal at a microphone port and converting the signal to transaction data. Id. at 16–18. Patent Owner points also to description of direct communication between a “client device” and server. Id. at 19. On the present record, we find that Petitioner, at this stage in the proceeding, has shown sufficiently how it contends that the earliest possible effective filing date for claims 1–4 of the ’286 patent is March, 3, 2015, such that the Cho, Aaron, Carpenter, and de Geer references qualify as prior art. Patent Owner has identified a factual dispute regarding the significance of the ’030 application’s disclosures, and we view that dispute as best resolved through trial.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) provides that one of the “Requirements of Petition” is that “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” “Whether a non-party is a RPI is a ‘highly fact-dependent question’ and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.” SharkNinja Operating LLC. v. IROBOT Corp., No. IPR2020-00735, 2020 WL 6050687, at *4 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2020) (precedential) (citing Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (Paper 148) (precedential) (citing Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012))). Here, addressing whether TCH is an unnamed RPI would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. There is no allegation or evidence that TCH is “barred or estopped from this proceeding or that Petitioner purposefully omitted [TCH] to gain some advantage.” SharkNinja at *4. Rather, Patent Owner argues that for “once again willfully fail[ing] to identify TCH as a real party in interest, . . . the Petition should be denied on that basis.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In other words, Patent Owner contends only that we deny institution because of “the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected under our precedent.” SharkNinja at *4. We understand that” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 26, 2018 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted in all four proceedings, and review was instituted on all challenged claims and grounds, except claims 12 and 20, which were disclaimed.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“persuades us to grant Petitioner’s requests for rehearing and institute trial in IPR2017-02141 and IPR2017-02143. In the IPR2017-02142 and IPR2017- 02144 proceedings, which have already been instituted as to one claim, Petitioner’s requests for rehearing convince us to institute as to all claims and all grounds set forth in each petition. In particular, in order to deny institution, or partially institute, we were confronted with competing testimony of witnesses offered as experts, as well as competing prior art translations, and we resolved at least one disputed issue of material fact in favor of Patent Owner to deny each petition. See Dec. 17–20. Our own regulation, however, cautions against such an approach at the institution phase of a proceeding stating, “a genuine issue of material fact created by . . . testimonial evidence [filed by Patent Owner] will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“’569 patent was entitled to priority and adequately disclosed by the ’894 Provisional.8 Claim 11 requires “disabling golf cart movement towards the predetermined area further comprises disabling golf cart movement except in a reverse direction,” and Petitioner contends that this limitation was not adequately supported in the ’894 Provisional. Petitioner argues that we improperly weighed competing expert testimony at this phase of the proceeding to resolve the disputed issue in favor of Patent Owner. Specifically, Petitioner argues:” slip op. at 8
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“9 On April 27, 2018, Club Car (Patent Owner) filed a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 for claim 12 of the ’569 patent. See IPR2017-02144, Paper 22, Exhibit B (Disclaimer of claim 12). Because claim 12 has been disclaimed, we need not issue a final written decision addressing the patentability of this claim.” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 26, 2018 · IPR2017-02142 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Rehearing
Granted Yamaha’s rehearing requests and instituted review of all challenged claims on all petition grounds in IPR2017-02141 through IPR2017-02144, except two disclaimed claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005). III. ANALYSIS One set of arguments made by Petitioner in each proceeding persuades us to grant Petitioner’s requests for rehearing and institute trial in IPR2017-02141 and IPR2017-02143. In the IPR2017-02142 and IPR2017- 02144 proceedings, which have already been instituted as to one claim, Petitioner’s requests for rehearing convince us to institute as to all claims and all grounds set forth in each petition. In particular, in order to deny institution, or partially institute, we were confronted with competing testimony of witnesses offered as experts, as well as competing prior art translations, and we resolved at least one disputed issue of material fact in favor of Patent Owner to deny each petition. See Dec. 17–20. Our own regulation, however, cautions against such an approach at the institution phase of a proceeding stating, “a genuine issue of material fact created by . . . testimonial evidence [filed by Patent Owner] will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“persuades us to grant Petitioner’s requests for rehearing and institute trial in IPR2017-02141 and IPR2017-02143. In the IPR2017-02142 and IPR2017- 02144 proceedings, which have already been instituted as to one claim, Petitioner’s requests for rehearing convince us to institute as to all claims and all grounds set forth in each petition. In particular, in order to deny institution, or partially institute, we were confronted with competing testimony of witnesses offered as experts, as well as competing prior art translations, and we resolved at least one disputed issue of material fact in favor of Patent Owner to deny each petition. See Dec. 17–20. Our own regulation, however, cautions against such an approach at the institution phase of a proceeding stating, “a genuine issue of material fact created by . . . testimonial evidence [filed by Patent Owner] will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).” slip op. at 4
- Adverse judgmentOther
“9 On April 27, 2018, Club Car (Patent Owner) filed a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 for claim 12 of the ’569 patent. See IPR2017-02144, Paper 22, Exhibit B (Disclaimer of claim 12). Because claim 12 has been disclaimed, we need not issue a final written decision addressing the patentability of this claim.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner
“persuades us to grant Petitioner’s requests for rehearing and institute trial in IPR2017-02141 and IPR2017-02143. In the IPR2017-02142 and IPR2017- 02144 proceedings, which have already been instituted as to one claim, Petitioner’s requests for rehearing convince us to institute as to all claims and all grounds set forth in each petition. In particular, in order to deny institution, or partially institute, we were confronted with competing testimony of witnesses offered as experts, as well as competing prior art translations, and we resolved at least one disputed issue of material fact in favor of Patent Owner to deny each petition. See Dec. 17–20. Our own regulation, however, cautions against such an approach at the institution phase of a proceeding stating, “a genuine issue of material fact created by . . . testimonial evidence [filed by Patent Owner] will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,239,965 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 26, 2018 · IPR2017-02143 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and instituted review on all asserted grounds for all challenged claims in IPR2017-02141 through IPR2017-02144, except the two disclaimed claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“persuades us to grant Petitioner’s requests for rehearing and institute trial in IPR2017-02141 and IPR2017-02143. In the IPR2017-02142 and IPR2017- 02144 proceedings, which have already been instituted as to one claim, Petitioner’s requests for rehearing convince us to institute as to all claims and all grounds set forth in each petition. In particular, in order to deny institution, or partially institute, we were confronted with competing testimony of witnesses offered as experts, as well as competing prior art translations, and we resolved at least one disputed issue of material fact in favor of Patent Owner to deny each petition. See Dec. 17–20. Our own regulation, however, cautions against such an approach at the institution phase of a proceeding stating, “a genuine issue of material fact created by . . . testimonial evidence [filed by Patent Owner] will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).” slip op. at 4
- Adverse judgmentOther
“9 On April 27, 2018, Club Car (Patent Owner) filed a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 for claim 12 of the ’569 patent. See IPR2017-02144, Paper 22, Exhibit B (Disclaimer of claim 12). Because claim 12 has been disclaimed, we need not issue a final written decision addressing the patentability of this claim.” slip op. at 10
NonePatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 26, 2018 · IPR2017-02141 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted review of all challenged claims on all petition grounds in four proceedings, except claims 12 and 20, which had been disclaimed.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“persuades us to grant Petitioner’s requests for rehearing and institute trial in IPR2017-02141 and IPR2017-02143. In the IPR2017-02142 and IPR2017- 02144 proceedings, which have already been instituted as to one claim, Petitioner’s requests for rehearing convince us to institute as to all claims and all grounds set forth in each petition. In particular, in order to deny institution, or partially institute, we were confronted with competing testimony of witnesses offered as experts, as well as competing prior art translations, and we resolved at least one disputed issue of material fact in favor of Patent Owner to deny each petition. See Dec. 17–20. Our own regulation, however, cautions against such an approach at the institution phase of a proceeding stating, “a genuine issue of material fact created by . . . testimonial evidence [filed by Patent Owner] will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,239,965 - Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00127 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed prior-art modifications lacked adequate support and rational underpinning.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The basis of disagreement boils down to an evaluation of a skilled artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’079 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’079 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively).” Id. at 2:34–39. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We observe that Patent Owner relies on content of the ’079 patent at column 11, lines 31–34 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’079 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’079 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:31–34. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’079 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’079 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that are “integrally joined to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently discloses that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally. Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja also inadequately explain why combination of Luthi ’202’s teachings with those of either Luthi ’800 or Chan would result in the above-noted “central cavity” as a part of the directional element of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. Although Luthi ’800 and Chan may show spaces or cavities in components of their shoes, there appear substantial differences in the designs of those shoes, and in particular the cushioning aspects, as compared with Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. We credit Dr. Hinrichs’s and Dr. Luthi’s testimony that the presence of such a cavity as shown in Luthi ’800 and Chan would prove detrimental to the medial-lateral stability of Luthi ’202’s shoe, and specifically the directional element of such a shoe that is depicted in Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 42; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 11–13. To that end, we also find inadequate Petitioner’s general position that combining the teachings of Luthi ’202, Luthi ’800, and Chan would result simply in a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art . . .” Pet. 35. We are not persuaded that any such combination would yield the “predictable results” advanced by Petitioner, or that “well within the knowledge and skill” of an artisan cited by Petitioner constitutes rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (An assertion of unpatentability based on “obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,339,079 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,339,079 - Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00125 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 20–32 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed modifications to Luthi ’202 were unsupported and relied on hindsight.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’285 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:19–21. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’285 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively.” Id. at 2:28– 31. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. In crediting Dr. Hinrichs’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art we observe that, although Petitioner makes reference to the testimony of its declarant Mr. Ganaja (see Pet. 6 (citing 1002 ¶¶ 39–43)), Mr. Ganaja makes no evaluation of his own in that testimony in connection with the level of ordinary skill. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“column 11, lines 23–26 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’285 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’285 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:23–26. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” or “leaf spring element” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’285 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’285 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction. Indeed, our above-noted understanding is also consistent with other embodiments described in the ’285 patent. For instance, embodiments depicted in Figures 13–16 show elements 23 extending in a forward direction with respect to the sole. The elements 23 of those figures are described as “leaf spring elements.” Id. at 10:15–50. Moreover, the ‘285 patent makes explicit that those leaf spring elements “are either forwardly or rearwardly directed.” Id. at 10:49–50. Patent Owner’s position that the claimed “leaf springs” or “leaf spring elements” require a parallel component extending in the rearward direction is inconsistent with these particular figures and the accompanying description in the ’285 patent. To that end, Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the meaning of the term “leaf spring” encompasses only a parallel component in the rearward direction, yet the ’285 patent clearly provides that leaf springs may also have components that extend in the forward direction. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we again conclude that “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” mean “a flexible member that deflects and provides a restoring force with an orthogonal and a parallel component in response to a load applied to the sole.” We discern that it is unnecessary to construe expressly any other claim term of the ’285 patent. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,345,285 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,345,285 - FMC Technologies, Inc. v. Onesubsea IP UK LimitedRehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 19, 2018 · IPR2016-00907 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claims 36 and 37 unpatentable as obvious over Kelly and Fenton, Kelly, Bednar, and Fenton, and Clair and Fenton.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. STANDARD OF REVIEW According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” The burden here, therefore, lies with Petitioner to show we misapprehended or overlooked the matters it requests that we review.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“sensors, as described by Fenton, are expressly enumerated as being processing apparatus in dependent claim 29.” Id. at 28 (cited by Req. Reh’g 5). The ’306 patent indeed teaches that a processing apparatus may include a temperature, pressure, or flow sensor. Ex. 1001, claim 29 (“the processing apparatus is chosen from at least one of: . . . measurement apparatus; temperature measurement apparatus; flow rate measurement apparatus . . .”); accord id. at claim 37. Accordingly, we also agree that Fenton’s sensors correspond to the recited “processing apparatus.” Petitioner further explained that “[m]odifying Kelly’s subsea choke assembly by adding one or more temperature sensors, pressure sensors, or flow meters as taught by Fenton would provide information related to fluid flow through the assembly and allow more precise control of the choke to achieve desired flow characteristics.” Pet. 27 (emphases added) (cited by Req. Reh’g 1). In light of our current understanding of Petitioner’s argument, based on the record, we find that the combination of Kelly and Fenton teaches a “diverter assembly,” a “choke,” and a “processing apparatus,” and that Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for modifying Kelly’s choke assembly to include Fenton’s temperature sensors, pressure sensors, or flow meters in order to allow for more precise control of the choke is sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Pet. 27–28.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,573,306 - Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. Ips Group Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · IPR2016-00067 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted IPS’s rehearing request and held claims 1–5 and 7–10 not shown unpatentable as anticipated by King ’054 under § 102(e).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“communicated to the inventors of King ’054 by Mr. King. In that respect, we observe the following: (1) it is undisputed that Mr. King and the D+I inventors invented the substantive content that became claims 8 and 10 of the ’310 patent; (2) Mr. King is a common inventor as between each of the ’310 patent and King ’054; (3) the record reflects that there was frequent and numerous collaborative exchanges between Mr. King and the other inventors of King ’310 (i.e., the D+I inventors); and (4) those exchanges occurred prior to the filing of the application that became King ’054. See, e.g., Exs. 2018–31, 2034–42.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“Response to IPS’s Request for Rehearing, provides little, if any, basis undermining the above-noted inference. DPT’s attempt, as a part of its Response, to belatedly seek rehearing of our Final Written Decision as to claims 1–5, 7, and 9 of the ’310 patent is both untimely and inadequately supported on the present record.4 Indeed, all the Response does is inappropriately seek rehearing of our Final Written Decision as to claims 1– 5, 7, and 9 of the ’310 patent, and does not follow our instruction of being responsive to the subject of the Request for Rehearing, i.e., the anticipation of dependent claims 8 and 10. See Paper 32, 2 (“The panel would like to hear from DPT as to the content of IPS’s Request for Rehearing. Accordingly, the panel authorizes . . . DPT to file a reply to IPS’s Request for Rehearing.”).” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,854,310 - Graco Children’S Products Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00911 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Kolcraft’s request for adverse judgment and ordered claims 46–50 cancelled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“unpatentability applied to claims 46–50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,458,114 B2 (“the ’114 patent”). Paper 8, 18. Patent Owner, Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. (“Kolcraft”), now requests judgment against itself pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).1 Paper 13. As a part of that request, Kolcraft also seeks cancellation of claims 46–50 of the ’114 patent. Id. Kolcraft’s request for adverse judgment against it is granted. In so granting that request, and as sought by Kolcraft, no claims of the ’114 patent remain in this proceeding. It is ORDERED that Kolcraft’s request for adverse judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that claims 46–50 of the ’114 patent will be cancelled;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,458,114
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.