- Amperex Technology Limited v. Maxell, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 28, 2023 · IPR2021-01443 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Choi and Kim; the Board found motivation to combine and that the references teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, or materials science, as well as five or more years of experience in the field of batteries and battery materials.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find that Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the scope and content of the ’019 Patent and the asserted prior art. We apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, with the caveat that the phrases “at least” and “or more” do not require significantly more education or experience than is explicitly set forth in Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that the proper construction of “different compositions of elements” in claim 3 and “composition of elements . . . is different” in claim 4 is “the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms, i.e. different elements or different amounts of the same elements between the at least two lithium-containing transition metal oxides.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128). Patent Owner neither opposes this construction, nor proposes any express construction of its own. See PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s unopposed claim construction, which is supported by the specification of the ’019 Patent. Ex. 1001, 11:29–33 (In formula (2), “M1, M2 and M3 are selected from the same elements as in the formula (1), but the elements selected or the constituting element ratios selected in the individual positive electrode active materials having different average particle sizes may differ from each other.”). The specification provides several examples in which the cathode active material is a mixture of two lithium-containing transition metal oxides having different average particle sizes and different amounts of the same elements. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 128, 129 (discussing Examples 1, 6, and 9–11).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We determine that no other claim term requires express construction for purposes of resolving the controversy. 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 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“lithium-containing transition metal oxides including “dopants.” PO Resp. 5–6; PO Sur-reply 2–3; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 33–36. Kim’s silence on particle size and dopants does not, however, mean that Kim’s cathode active material is “wholly different” from Choi’s cathode active material, as asserted by Patent Owner and Dr. Lucht. PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2008 ¶ 35. Patent Owner does not dispute that Choi and Kim both disclose lithium-containing transition metal oxides as cathode active materials. PO Resp. 5 (discussing Kim and citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 69); see also Ex. 2008 ¶ 36 (same). Moreover, Dr. Lucht does not explain how Kim’s silence on particle size and dopants would have affected a POSITA’s motivations and expectations regarding the electrolyte—the modification of Choi proposed by Petitioner. For this reason and as further explained below, Dr. Lucht’s testimony that “Kim . . . discloses a wholly different cathode active material technology than Choi” (Ex. 2008 ¶ 35) is not sufficient to rebut Dr. van Schalkwijk’s testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to include the aliphatic nitrile compound of Kim as an electrolyte additive in the battery of Choi “to increase thermal stability and improve discharge characteristics in the resultant batteries” and would have expected the addition of the aliphatic nitrile compound to be effective. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 151, 152. As discussed above, Choi and Kim teach different ways to improve thermal stability. Whereas Choi’s small diameter cathode active materials confer thermal stability (Ex. 1005, 7, 10), Kim teaches that thermal stability and discharge characteristics are improved by a protective layer formed by a complex between the surface of a cathode active material and an aliphatic dinitrile compound. Ex. 1006, code (57), ¶¶ 32, 33, 37–42. According to Kim, a “polar cyano group with high dipole moment in the aliphatic nitrile cathode” and “X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy data . . . show a complex is formed by a bond between a cobalt metal oxide and the cyano group of the dinitrile compound.” Id. ¶¶ 39, 40, Figs. 1, 2. Because Choi’s cathode active material likewise contains a transition metal, such as cobalt, the references support a reasonable inference that the same sort of cyano group complex would be formed if a dinitrile compound were included in Choi’s electrolyte. Ex. 1005, 5–6; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 37–40. On this record, there is no evidence that Choi’s dopants would have interfered with complexation between the surface of a cathode active material and an aliphatic nitrile compound or formation of a protective layer on the cathode, as described by Kim. To the contrary, Dr. van Schalkwijk testified that the addition of small amounts of an additive element, such as magnesium, to the cathode “wouldn’t change . . . the types of results they were looking for in terms of film formation on what is substantially lithium cobalt oxide or lithium nickel oxide.” Ex. 2016, 37:18–40:3 (discussing Kim). In our Institution Decision, we observed that “Dr. Lucht does not say that Kim’s teachings about an aliphatic nitrile compound are inapplicable to Choi’s cathode materials.” Inst. Dec. 19. On this record, there is still no such testimony from Dr. Lucht. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel conceded that Patent Owner is not arguing that the result would be different when combining a dinitrile (or mononitrile) compound with a “complex” cathode material, as compared with a “basic” cathode material. Tr. 32:7–20. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s distinction between “complex” and “basic” lithium-containing transition metal oxides (PO Resp. 5–7; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 34– 36; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 10–12) does not undermine Dr. van Schalkwijk’s testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to include an aliphatic nitrile in characteristics of Choi’s battery and would have expected that the electrolyte additive would have been effective. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147, 148, 150–152.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,350,019 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,350,019 - Amperex Technology Limited v. Maxell, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 28, 2023 · IPR2021-01441 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Choi and Noh; the Board did not reach the alternative Negishi-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, or materials science, as well as five or more years of experience in the field of batteries and battery materials.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find that Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the scope and content of the ’035 Patent and the asserted prior art. We apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, with the caveat that the phrases “at least” and “or more” do not require significantly more education or experience than is explicitly set forth in Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party seeks express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 3–4; PO Resp. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of resolving the controversy. 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“There is no dispute that Choi discloses Mg and Al as possible constituents of a cathode active material. PO Resp. 14–15; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 10, 11 (disclosing Formula 2, LixCo1-y-zNiyMzO2-αXα, where “M is selected from the group consisting of Al, Ni, Mn, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, rare earth elements and mixtures thereof”). Undisputed evidence shows that a POSITA would have had several reasons to select Mg and Al from the options Choi discloses for element M. 17 S. Madhavi et al., Cathodic properties of (Al, Mg) co-doped LiNi0.7Co0.3O2, Solid State Ionics 152–153, 199–205 (2002) (“Madhavi”). material’s electronic conductivity; (2) that Al would provide structural enhancement to the cathode; (3) that Mg and Al would be less likely to disrupt the structure of the cathode material because they are the smallest elements in Choi’s list; and (4) that Mg and Al would not be oxidized or reduced because they each have singular oxidation states. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–180; Ex. 1024). We credit the following unrebutted testimony of Dr. van Schalkwijk: First, each doping element (e.g., Mg, Al, etc.) plays a different role in modifying the material properties of the host material (e.g., lithium cobalt oxide). . . . Mg atoms were first successfully doped into the LiCoO2 lattice, the result being an increase in the electronic conductivity of the material. . . . Mg doping also altered the phase transition behavior of the delithiation process, which is the removal of lithium ions from the cathode during battery charging. . . . Mg’s effect was to increase the charge voltage available to the cathode; however, this was not a large effect because the solubility of Mg in the cathode was quite small, i.e. only small amounts of Mg could be doped into LiCoO2. . . . Al was another dopant that was used at the time of Choi and the ’035 Patent. . . . However, it did not enhance the conductivity of the cathode as much as the effect from Mg doping. The strength of Al was that it was able to affect the same structural enhancements to the cathode, and it was much more soluble in the cathode, i.e. more aluminum could be doped into the cathode. . . . The motivation to use two dopants (and Mg and Al were common co-dopants) was the structural enhancement of the larger concentration of Al and the electronic conductivity enhancement due to the Mg. . . .” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,077,035 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,077,035 - Amperex Technology Limited v. Maxell, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 28, 2023 · IPR2021-01440 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Choi and Kim; the Board did not reach the alternative Koshiishi and Abe ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, or materials science, as well as five or more years of experience in the field of batteries and battery materials.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find that Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the scope and content of the ’446 Patent and the asserted prior art. We apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, with the caveat that the phrases “at least” and “or more” do not require significantly more education or experience than is explicitly set forth in Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that the proper construction of “different compositions of elements” in claims 1 and 3 and “composition of elements . . . is different” in claim 2 is “the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms, i.e. different elements or different amounts of the same elements between the at least two lithium-containing transition metal oxides.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 126). Patent Owner neither opposes this construction, nor proposes any express construction of its own. See PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s unopposed claim construction, which is supported by the specification of the ’446 Patent. Ex. 1001, 11:21–25 (In formula (2), “M1, M2 and M3 are selected from the same elements as in the formula (1), but the elements selected or the constituting element ratios selected in the individual positive electrode active materials having different average particle sizes may differ from each other.”). The specification provides several examples in which the cathode active material is a mixture of two lithium-containing transition metal oxides having different average particle sizes and different amounts of the same elements. Ex. 1001, 22:44–49, 25:58–65, 26:32–38, 26:48–54, 26:64–27:3; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 123 (discussing Examples 1, 6, and 9–11).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, Choi and Kim teach different ways to improve thermal stability. Whereas Choi’s small diameter cathode active materials confer thermal stability (Ex. 1005, 7, 10), Kim teaches that thermal stability and discharge characteristics are improved by a protective layer formed by a complex between the surface of a cathode active material and an aliphatic dinitrile compound. Ex. 1006, code (57), ¶¶ 32, 33, 37–42. According to Kim, a “polar cyano group with high dipole moment in the aliphatic nitrile compound forms a bond with a transition metal, such as cobalt, in the cathode” and “X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy data . . . show a complex is formed by a bond between a cobalt metal oxide and the cyano group of the dinitrile compound.” Id. ¶¶ 39, 40, Figs. 1, 2. Because Choi’s cathode active material likewise contains a transition metal, such as cobalt, the complex would be formed if a dinitrile compound were included in Choi’s electrolyte. Ex. 1005, 5–6; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 37–40. On this record, there is no evidence that Choi’s dopants would have interfered with complexation between the surface of a cathode active material and an aliphatic nitrile compound or formation of a protective layer on the cathode, as described by Kim. To the contrary, Dr. van Schalkwijk testified that the addition of small amounts of an additive element, such as magnesium, to the cathode “wouldn’t change . . . the types of results they were looking for in terms of film formation on what is substantially lithium cobalt oxide or lithium nickel oxide.” Ex. 2016, 37:18–40:3 (discussing Kim). In our Institution Decision, we observed that “Dr. Lucht does not say that Kim’s teachings about an aliphatic nitrile compound are inapplicable to Choi’s cathode materials.” Inst. Dec. 19. On this record, there is still no such testimony from Dr. Lucht. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel conceded that Patent Owner is not arguing that the result would be different when combining a dinitrile (or mononitrile) compound with a “complex” cathode material, as compared with a “basic” cathode material. Tr. 32:7–20. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s distinction between “complex” and “basic” lithium-containing transition metal oxides (PO Resp. 5–7; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 34– 36; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 10–12) does not undermine Dr. van Schalkwijk’s testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to include an aliphatic nitrile in the electrolyte to increase the thermal stability and improve the discharge characteristics of Choi’s battery and would have expected that the electrolyte additive would have been effective. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 141, 142, 144–146.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“In IPR proceedings, “where there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed invention falls within that range, the burden of production falls upon the patentee to come forward with evidence” of teaching away, unexpected results or criticality, or other pertinent objective indicia indicating that the overlapping range would not have been obvious in light of that prior art. DuPont, 904 F.3d at 1008 (quoting Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Here, Patent Owner does not meet its burden to produce evidence of non-obviousness of the claimed range for the molar amount of M2.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,691,446 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,691,446 - Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01218 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable on specified §103 grounds; claims 4–6 and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The ’567 patent is directed to a using a thermostat to detect faults in the HVAC system. See Ex. 1001, code (57). That aligns more closely with and HVAC control systems—than the one proposed by Petitioner—which focuses on energy controls. Compare Ex. 2002 ¶ 27, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31– 33. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s propose definition. However, we consider the parties’ positions to be substantially similar, and note that neither party argues that the level of skill is determinative to the outcome of the case. Accordingly, we would have reached the same factual findings and conclusions of law had we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We decline to find Dr. Palmer less credible based solely on his experience. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration for his opinions, provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. Moreover, we note that Mr. Shah and Dr. Palmer substantially parrot the Petition and Patent Owner Response, respectively. Such testimony is generally unhelpful. Testimony which goes into more detail and expands on the points made in the papers (but not going beyond the points made in the papers) is more helpful and, as a general matter, given more weight so long as it is consistent with, and supported by, the other evidence in the record.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - PTAB · Sep 29, 2022 · IPR2022-00986 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5 based on the same grounds as IPR2021-01443 and granted Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.’s motion to join that proceeding.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“deny institution based on Petitioner’s refusal to enter a Sotera-style stipulation in the related CosMX litigation. Prelim. Resp. 1, 3–4; see Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”). A June 2022 Memorandum from the Director states, “Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., . . . the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“six non-exclusive Fintiv factors. Fintiv I at 6. Recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor,” the Board “takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id.; see also Interim Procedure at 3 (providing “binding agency guidance” regarding how the Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and the Fintiv factors apply to “sample fact patterns”). After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence in light of the Fintiv factors and the Interim Procedure, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition as explained further below.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the record as a whole and for the same reasons as stated in the institution decision in the 1443 IPR, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 1443 IPR, Paper 16 at 14‒35 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2022).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Here, Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder requests no more than the statute allows. Petitioner represents that “the Petition asserts the same grounds and relies on the same evidence for unpatentability” as presented in the 1443 IPR. Mot. 7. Furthermore, Petitioner agrees that, if joined to the 1443 IPR, Petitioner will take a secondary “understudy” role and will not request any changes to the trial schedule. Mot. 4, 7–8. Petitioner states that it will assume a primary role only if the petitioner in the 1443 IPR ceases its participation. Mot. 8.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,350,019 - PTAB · Sep 29, 2022 · IPR2022-00985 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–11 on the grounds instituted in IPR2021-01441 and joined Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. to that proceeding.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“In assessing whether to exercise such discretion, the Board weighs the six non-exclusive Fintiv factors. Fintiv I at 6. Recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor,” the Board “takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id.; see also Interim Procedure at 3 (providing “binding agency guidance” regarding how the Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and the Fintiv factors apply to “sample fact patterns”). After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence in light of the Fintiv factors and the Interim Procedure, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition as explained further below.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the record as a whole and for the same reasons as stated in the institution decision in the 1441 IPR, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 1441 IPR, Paper 16 at 11‒49 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2022).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Here, Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder requests no more than the statute allows. Petitioner represents that “the Petition asserts the same grounds and relies on the same evidence for unpatentability” as presented in the 1441 IPR. Mot. 7. Furthermore, Petitioner agrees that, if joined to the 1441 IPR, Petitioner will take a secondary “understudy” role and will not request any changes to the trial schedule. Mot. 4, 7–8. Petitioner states that it will assume a primary role only if the petitioner in the 1441 IPR ceases its participation. Mot. 8. Patent Owner states that, if the Board grants institution, then “Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s Joinder Motion.” Prelim. Resp. 1. The petitioner in the 1441 IPR has not opposed Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. See Mot. 8 (stating that the petitioner in the 1441 IPR has not provided its position about whether it would oppose the motion). We find that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). After considering the unopposed motion, we are persuaded that joinder is appropriate and will have little to no impact on the timing, cost, or presentation of the trial on the instituted grounds. In consideration of the foregoing, and in the manner set forth in the following Order, the Motion for Joinder is granted.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,077,035 - PTAB · Sep 29, 2022 · IPR2022-00984 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5 on the same §103 grounds as IPR2021-01440 and granted Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.’s motion to join that proceeding.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”),6 3 (footnote omitted; citing Sotera). In other words, under the Interim Procedure, a petitioner may avoid discretionary denial of the petition based on a parallel district court litigation by providing a Sotera-style stipulation. The Interim Procedure does not, however, make a Sotera-style stipulation a prerequisite for institution. Under our informative precedent, an inter partes review may be instituted despite the absence of a Sotera-style stipulation. Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 12 n.5 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”) (instituting inter partes review notwithstanding the absence of a stipulation not pursue any ground that could have been reasonably raised in an inter partes review). Thus, exercising our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) merely because Petitioner has not entered a Sotera-style stipulation would be inappropriate in this case.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“related CosMX litigation. We decline to speculate on how the district court would rule on a stay, if one were requested. Sand Revolution at 7 (declining to predict whether or not the district court would grant a stay, if requested); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative) (“Fintiv II”) (explaining that factor 1 generally “does not weigh for or against discretionary denial” when neither party has requested a stay). Accordingly, this factor is neutral.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the record as a whole and for the same reasons as stated in the institution decision in the 1440 IPR, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 1440 IPR, Paper 17 at 14‒34 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2022).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Here, Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder requests no more than the statute allows. Petitioner represents that “the Petition asserts the same grounds and relies on the same evidence for unpatentability” as presented in the 1440 IPR. Mot. 7. Furthermore, Petitioner agrees that, if joined to the 1440 IPR, Petitioner will take a secondary “understudy” role and will not request any changes to the trial schedule. Mot. 4, 7–8. Petitioner states that it will assume a primary role only if the petitioner in the 1440 IPR ceases its participation. Mot. 8.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,691,446 - Duke Manufacturing Co. v. Low Temp Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00415 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 11, 12, and 14–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Finegan and Tipton; the Board did not reach the remaining instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill are grounded on a relevant engineering degree and/or significant experience designing food service equipment, both of which reasonably also indicate some understanding of heat transfer concepts.9 Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition, which overlaps that proposed by Petitioner, particularly that of a person with a mechanical engineering degree and/or four years of experience designing food service equipment who also has an understanding of heat transfer concepts. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself 9 We note that neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Mayor provide any particular definition of an understanding of heat transfer concepts, and it is not apparent that more than a rudimentary understanding is required.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Mayor’s testimony as to the meaning of “well” (Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 29– 32) is entitled to little weight because it fails to explain how the cited portions of the specification and file history support his position, and it is not otherwise apparent that it does. Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”); cf. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”). In sum, we determine that the meaning of “well,” as used in the ’253 patent, includes the interior walls and exterior walls (if present).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededMixed
“On this record, we determine that “well” includes at least the well bottom (or floor), the interior well walls, and the exterior well walls (if present). The specification discloses that “[w]ell 18 may comprise generally vertically-extending interior walls 22 connected by bottom or floor 26 . . . [that] [w]ell 18 additionally may comprise four exterior walls 30,” and that “well 18 preferably . . . is formed of stainless steel,” which by the plain meaning of the words indicates that the bottom (or floor), the interior walls, and the exterior walls are part of the well. See Ex. 1201, 4:3–17. Further, the disclosure that “well 18 preferably . . . is formed of stainless steel” indicates that a well includes physical structure(s), such as the walls and the bottom (or floor). Id. at 4:15–17. Also, each independent claim requires” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Further, as depicted in the figures, including Figures 1 and 4, the exterior walls are not shown to be in contact, as there is no well structure depicted in the region spanned by D1, despite Figure 5, depicting a cross-sectional view of the same embodiment, showing an exterior wall 30. In sum, the depicted structure in the relied-on figures appears wholly consistent with D1 being the distance between the exterior walls 30 of adjacent wells 18, where wells are defined as including the interior walls 22 and exterior walls 30. Having a space D1 between exterior walls 30 of adjacent wells 18 is also consistent with claim 1 reciting “at least one exterior wall of one well is spaced an insulative distance from an exterior wall of an adjacent well.” Ex. 1201, 5:46–48. inconsistencies identified above between their positions and what is actually disclosed and depicted in the ’253 patent. Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, as well as the related District Court proceeding and Federal Circuit proceeding,14 we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “adjacent” as “next to.” We are not directed to anything in the record that requires the wells to be “immediately next to or abutting,” as Patent Owner contends. Rather, as the ’253 patent discloses a distance D1 between wells, the proper meaning is simply “next to.”” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,795,253 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,795,253 - PTAB · Jul 6, 2022 · IPR2022-00686 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–20 based on the same grounds as the Google IPR and granted Ecobee’s motion to join that proceeding.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. 42.108(a) (2021).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“The Petition asserts the same unpatentability grounds on which we instituted review in the Google IPR. See Mot. 1, 4–5. Petitioner presents “the same arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing Google IPR (i.e., challenges the same claims of the same patent, relies on the same expert declaration, and is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the granted Google Petition).” Id. at 4. Indeed, the Petition is nearly a “carbon copy” of the petition filed by the petitioner in the Google IPR. See id. Thus, this inter partes review does not present any ground or matter not already at issue in the Google IPR. If joinder is granted, Petitioner anticipates participating in the proceeding in a limited capacity absent termination of the Google IPR petitioner as a party. Mot. 1–2; see also id. at 6–8. Petitioner states that it Google ceases to participate in the instituted IPR.” Id. at 1. Because Petitioner expects to participate only in a limited capacity, Petitioner submits that “the proposed joinder will not unduly complicate the Google IPR nor adversely impact its schedule. As such, the requested joinder will promote judicial efficiency in determining the patentability of the ‘567 patent without prejudice to Patent Owner.” Id. at 1–2. Petitioner further indicates that Google does not oppose the request joinder. Id. at 2. Patent Owner did not file an opposition to the motion for joinder. We agree with Petitioner that joinder with the Google IPR is appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - Duke Manufacturing Co. v. Low Temp Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00414 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable: claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16–20, and 22–26 as anticipated by Finegan; claims 1–26 as obvious over Finegan, Safyan, and Hansen; and claims 3–5 as obvious over Finegan and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because the levels of skill both Petitioner and Patent Owner set forth are based on an engineering degree and a length and type of experience that overlap. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“On this record, we determine that the control system limitations sufficiently connote structure and are not subject to means-plus-function construction. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (stating the determination of whether a limitation is a means-plus-function term “subject to the strictures of § 112, para. 6” is not based merely on the presence or absence of the word “means” but on whether “the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”). As to Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner only demonstrates support for “controls” and “controllers” being known in the art and not for a “system,” as the claims recite (Reply 11–12), we determine that there is no meaningful distinction because the controls or controllers disclosed in the ’970 patent are necessarily included in systems with other known elements to control temperature. Further, the disclosure of exemplary apparatus in the specification, including disclosure incorporated by reference (Ex. 1101, 1:58–61), supports that temperature control systems are known structures/apparatuses, and Petitioner fails to establish that they are not (see generally Pet.; Reply). In sum, we determine the control system limitations are terms that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structures of a broad category of systems known to those of skill in the art. The breadth and diversity of the structures/apparatuses ordinarily skilled artisans would have understood to be included within the meaning of the terms do not subject the terms to means-plus-function construction. Further construction of the terms is not necessary.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Regarding Patent Owner’s first argument, we find that Finegan sufficiently discloses thermally isolated wells and insulative gaps. Finegan’s wells are either thermally isolated as a result of their relative orientation (Pet. 31 (citing annotated Finegan Fig. 7)), or as a result of the insulation or insulative air gap (Pet. 29–31 (citing annotated Finegan Figs. 4, 7)). Finegan’s flanges, whether frosted or not, are “part of the well and must themselves be thermally isolated from their surroundings to facilitate frost formation,” and “the inclusion of the flanges does not defeat the well’s thermal isolation.” Reply 13; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 294–297 (Dr. Homan’s testimony). Petitioner also demonstrates that Finegan’s insulation material would reduce heat transfer. Ex. 1149 ¶¶ 84–85 (Dr. Homan’s testimony that Finegan’s insulation material and insulation tape reduce heat transfer). Finegan’s insulation “extends over most of the well and the thermally-conductive material (38), to insulate the well.” Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1149 ¶ 84; Ex. 1105, 7:22–26, Fig. 4). Although we agree with Patent Owner that Finegan states that there is a “need to provide for a food service table or buffet that employs a shallow pan for use in both hot and cold service conditions while still providing sufficient frosting of the top surface” (Ex. 1105, 2:11–13), Petitioner has demonstrated that Finegan’s thermal isolation and insulation would not defeat this objective. Reply 13–14. Regarding Patent Owner’s second argument, we refer to our claim construction to find that Finegan teaches wells in a single frame. Because, under our construction, a well includes at least the interior well walls and exterior well walls (if present), and a frame refers to a “rigid supporting structure,” we find that Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that Finegan teaches wells in a single frame. Pet. 26–27, 29–31. We disagree that “skilled artisans would view the two apparatuses (10) in Figure 7 of Finegan to be independent pieces of equipment and thus not a module with wells bound by a single frame” and that “Finegan does not teach wells in a single frame” because the pans are separated by what Patent Owner argues is an “indeterminate distance of countertop.” PO Resp. 32. As discussed above, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction for “a frame.” Accordingly, we find that, under our claim constructions, Petitioner demonstrates that Finegan’s countertop 14 and side walls housing its wells 18 meet the limitations of the challenged claims, particularly those that require an arrangement between the frame and the wells (i.e. claims 14, 23, and 25). Reply 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 1105, annotated Figs. 1, 7; Ex. 1149 ¶ 101); see also Ex. 2050, 10–11 (finding unfounded the district court’s determination “that Finegan’s Figure 7 only discloses a single pan in each of two separate modules” and determining that Figure 7 “discloses a single ‘apparatus 10’ with two wells 18A and 18B . . . . Those wells are shown within a single countertop 14.”). Additionally, we disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Homan’s testimony as admitting that Finegan’s pans/wells are separate modules. PO Resp. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1130, 241:24–242:3, 217:20–24, 240:5–14). A fair reading of Dr. Homan’s testimony indicates that he was referring to “wells,” despite counsel using the term “modules,” ultimately supporting Petitioner’s position that Finegan discloses two wells in a single frame. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1130, 241:15–242:2). Regarding Patent Owner’s third argument, and referring to our claim construction, we find that Finegan teaches the control system limitations. Although we do not find these terms to be subject to means-plus-function construction, we nevertheless find sufficient Petitioner’s mapping of these limitations to the structures in Finegan performing the functions of the control system limitations. See, e.g., Pet. 31–32 (regarding claim 1.c.1, referring to Finegan Fig. 7 to map PLC 80 connected to heating elements 78 (via switches 94) and valving 90 for controlling refrigerant flow from condensing unit 118 to cooling coils 32, and using user interface 96 and temperature sensors 82A). Petitioner persuasively argues that Finegan’s PLC (programmable logic controller) 80 and user interface 96 meet the control system limitations: “Both Finegan’s global control and the ‘970 patent’s individual controls perform this function [of independently controlling the wells’ temperatures] in the same way, by connecting the electrical resistance heating elements to an electrical power source and by operating valving to control the flow of refrigerant.” Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1101: 4:49–52, 4:56–63; Ex. 1105, 9:27–11:28); Pet. 32–33.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“sufficiently discloses insulative gaps. The Petition shows that Finegan’s wells are “individually insulated and thermally isolated by thermal insulation (40) between exterior and interior wall (44, 20 (identifiable by opposed surfaces (36, 46))).” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 273; Ex. 1105, Fig. 4). Safyan teaches air gaps (i.e., an unfilled insulating space) as an alternative to foam. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 276–277, Ex. 1106, Fig. 2, 4:36–46). Petitioner argues with evidentiary support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to omit Finegan’s insulating material to leave an insulative gap, as in Safyan, to reduce material and labor costs, as a matter of simple substitution, with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 279–282). Patent Owner’s argument that Finegan does not disclose an insulative gap and that its insulation does not meet the limitations of the challenged claims argues against Finegan individually, rather than against the Finegan-Safyan combination. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Petitioner also provides adequate motivation to combine Finegan and Safyan, not limited to arguing that the two references are in the same field of endeavor. Pet. 51–53 (relying on Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 276–282); Reply 22–23. Regarding claim 9, we find that Petitioner provides adequate motivation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art “would have minimized the distance between wells.” Pet. 53–54; Ex. 1149 ¶ 124–126. We credit Petitioner’s reliance on references and evidence supporting its assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have located Finegan’s wells as close together as needed (e.g., three inches or less)” to “meet size restrictions for a compact space-saving design.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 298–299). We disagree that “Finegan’s frost top would be destroyed” (PO Resp. 43) by this combination, because spacing “as small as a fraction of an inch between the flanges of adjacent wells would ensure thermal isolation of the wells and that a cooled flange would form frost.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶297).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 8,661,970 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,661,970
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.