• Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not proven unpatentable under either §103 ground because the evidence did not show the claimed viewability determination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’329 patent: a person that would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s resurrected argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of § 311(b). Section 311(b) provides: “A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed cancel the claims of the ’329 patent on the basis of Badros, Harkins, and Krassner. Pet. 11. Petitioner did not base its request, in whole or in part, on the Krassner publication. Id. Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner responds that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, “Harkins teaches that its invention can be used in web pages.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶30). Although Petitioner’s citation is off by one paragraph, Petitioner’s response about what Harkins teaches is correct. See Ex. 1004 ¶29 (“The present invention may be implemented for provision of virtually any type of advertising (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet, billboard, etc.) via any type of advertising medium (e.g., newspaper, magazine, radio broadcast, Web pages, billboards, etc.) without departing from the scope of the present invention.”). We find that Harkins is from the same field based on its express statement that it is applicable to “virtually any type of advertising” and “any type of advertising medium,” including “Web pages.” Ex. 1004 ¶29. Further, even if this were insufficient to place Harkins in the same field as the ’329 patent, we find that Harkins is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with which the ’329 patent inventors were involved. In sum, we find that Harkins is analogous art to the ’329 patent.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “Paper 60 (“PO Mot. To Exclude”), 9–10.6 Patent Owner is correct in this regard and, thus, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude with respect to the testimony in the second Smedley Declaration and the Madansky Declaration opining that Badros teaches the determination limitation. Paper 60, 9–12. Petitioner, in its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, argues that Patent Owner’s arguments about the “viewability test” were “surprising.” Paper 62, 8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The “viewability test” is a claim limitation. Petitioner should have anticipated that Patent Owner would argue that limitation. See In re Gardner, 449 F. App’x 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This court has held that when evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight.” (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Univ. of Strathclyde v. 6 Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude seeks to exclude, in part or in whole, Exhibits 1020–1022, 1025–1030, and 1034–1040, which were submitted with Petitioner’s Reply, of which Exhibits 1026 and 1027 are the declaration by Dr. Madansky and the second declaration by Dr. Smedley, respectively. Mot. To Exclude. The Motion to Exclude also seeks to exclude “Exhibits” 1017 and 1018, which are not filed or of record in this case but which are referenced in the Reply. Id. For example, Exhibit 1017 is the Krassner publication, which Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to add to the record as supplemental information. See Paper 21, 3 n.1 (expunging the Krassner publication and stating that it “need not -- and indeed may not -- be re-filed under a new exhibit number”). Apart from the portions of Dr. Smedley’s second declaration and Dr. Madansky’s declaration opining that Badros teaches the “determination” limitation, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot. obviousness determination generally requires a finding that “all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art’.” (citing PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Petitioner argues that “[v]iewability tests were well known for well over a decade prior to the ’329 patent’s priority date.” Reply 9. If that were the case, then Petitioner should have made its argument in the Petition. Section 312(a) of Title 35 is titled “Requirements of Petition,” and it specifies that a petition must identify, among other things, “the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including . . . (B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence and opinions, if the petitioner relies on expert opinions.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon; and . . . the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge.”). Thus, “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 73 (Nov. 21, 2019).7 Dr. Smedley’s testimony in his second declaration, that “Badros discloses Patent Owner’s ‘viewability test’” (Ex. 1027 ¶11), is clearly evidence to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. The same is true of Dr. Madansky’s testimony that she agrees with Dr. Smedley in this regard. Ex. 1026 ¶4.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,443,329
• Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00922 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–9, 11–19, and 21 unpatentable as obvious over Reed and Nishida because it did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “appropriate factors identified by our reviewing court and utilized by other panels to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 17–18. We agree with Petitioner that it is not necessary to consider every factor or to weigh the factors equally in order to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 2 (quoting In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Here, we may rely on Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 34) and the teachings of the prior art to evaluate Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In particular, Reed and Nishida identify the types of problems encountered in the art prior art solutions to these problems, and the sophistication of the technology. E.g., Ex. 1006, 1:13–55; Ex. 1009, 1:10– 36; see, e.g., Ex. 1007, 1:8–32, 2:12–64; Ex. 1008, 1:11–54; Ex. 1010, 145– 160; see also Ex. 1010, Preface (“The aim of this book is to combine in a single volume the fundamental principles of weft and warp knitting in such a manner that its contents are useful to readers in education, industry or commerce. It thus [fulfills] the long felt need for a comprehensive up-to-date textbook explaining this important sector of textile technology.”).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “unitary construction” means “a textile element having a unitary construction and having a first area and a second area.” Pet. 6. As Petitioner notes, this is the construction that this panel gave to the same term appearing in the substitute claims of the ’011 patent. adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Case IPR2013- 00067, slip op. at 16–17 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2014) (Paper 60). We further note that the ’749 patent’s Specification provides that “[a]s defined for purposes of the present invention, unitary construction is intended to express a configuration wherein portions of a textile element are not joined together by seams or other connections, as depicted with textile element 40 in FIG. 8.” Ex. 1001, 6:42–46 (emphasis added); see IPR2013-00067, Ex. 1002, 6:41–46 (identical disclosure). The ’011 patent and the ’749 patent share the same Specification (apart from their claims), neither party contested our construction of this term in the appeal of our decision in the inter partes review of the claims of the ’011 patent, and Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term in this proceeding. Therefore, in view of the express definition of the phrase “unitary construction” in the Specification of the ’749 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation for this term. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “2. “wide-tube circular knitting machine” (Claims 9 and 19) We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “wide-tube circular knitting machine” is “a circular knitting machine forming body garment sized, tubular textile structures, including those having a diameter that ranges from 10 inches to 20 inches.” See Inst. Dec. 9–11. Neither party contests this construction. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “8 Patent Owner contends that Reed is not analogous art. PO Resp. 34–36. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Reed is not from the same field of endeavor as the challenged claims and that Reed’s teachings are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the recited methods are involved. Id. at 34–35. Because Reed is directed to the manufacture of all types of garments, including footwear (Reply 12–13; see Ex. 1006, 1:33–44), and Reed is related directly to preparation of garments layouts from a knitted textile structure (Reply 14–15; see Ex. 1006, 2:29– 35), we are persuaded that Reed is analogous art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00921 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–13 unpatentable as obvious over Reed and Nishida because it did not show a reason to combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Initially, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to consider appropriate factors identified by our reviewing court and utilized by other panels to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 12–13. We agree with Petitioner that it is not necessary to consider every factor or to weigh the factors equally in order to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 2 (quoting In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Here, we may rely on Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 34) and the teachings of the prior art to evaluate Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In particular, Reed and Nishida identify the types of problems encountered in the art prior art solutions to these problems, and the sophistication of the technology. E.g., Ex. 1006, 1:13–55; Ex. 1009, 1:10– 36; see, e.g., Ex. 1007, 1:8–32, 2:12–64; Ex. 1008, 1:11–54; Ex. 1010, 145– 160; see also Ex. 1010, Preface (“The aim of this book is to combine in a single volume the fundamental principles of weft and warp knitting in such a manner that its contents are useful to readers in education, industry or commerce. It thus [fulfills] the long felt need for a comprehensive up-to-date textbook explaining this important sector of textile technology.”). Patent Owner contends that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “low” (PO Resp. 13), but it is not clear whether Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner’s assessment is deficient because Petitioner fails to argue that a person possessing such a “low” level of ordinary skill in the art also would have “experience using knitting technologies to create knitted footwear uppers” (id. at 13–14) or whether the inclusion of such skill would raise the “low” level of skill in the art (id. at 14). Alternatively, Patent Owner may merely be contending that Petitioner’s declarant fails to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 14 (“If it was too ‘dangerous’ for Mr. Holden with his nearly forty years of experience, a person with just a “few years of experience” would not have had any knitting experience, let alone experience using knitting technologies to create uppers.”); see Tr. 62:17–22. Patent Owner is not required to help us assess the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not do so here. See PO Resp. 18 (“Petitioner may criticize NIKE for not submitting an expert declaration. But it is Petitioner’s burden to prove unpatentability; it is not NIKE’s burden to prove patentability.”). In response to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner argues that the level of ordinary skill in the art is not low and that hands-on knitting experience is not required. Reply 2–3. Petitioner further argues Patent Owner has not required knitting experience in its previous assessment with respect to a related patent of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing IPR2013-00067, Ex. 2010 ¶ 52). Based on the record before us and to the extent necessary, we again adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Inst. Dec. 8 n.3.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “document.” Reply 3 (quoting Ex. 2004, 12:7–11); see Ex. 2004, 12:12– 13:16. Declarants often have assistance in authoring their declarations. See Square, Inc. v. Think Computer Corp., Case CBM2014-00159, slip op. at 26–27 (PTAB Nov. 27, 2015) (Paper 47) (“the mechanics of declaration preparation is ‘a waste of time, both for the witness and the Board’”). Mr. Holden was not required to be the sole author of his declaration. Rather, the relevant issue regarding the preparation of Mr. Holden’s declaration is whether Mr. Holden adopted the content of his declaration as his own. Here, he has. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3, 4, 209. As Patent Owner suggests, we weigh Mr. Holden’s declaration testimony in light of his testimony on cross-examination. Although Mr. Holden indicated that he was unable to define or was unfamiliar with certain terms during cross-examination, he did name references, including Spencer (Ex. 1010), that he could and would consult to obtain the answers to specific questions. Tr. 63:20–64:13. Moreover, Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged that persons of ordinary skill in the art (or declarants) do not have to have all of the knowledge relevant to their testimony in their heads and that they are allowed to consult references, as appropriate. Id. at 63:20– 64:2. Although Patent Owner notes that Mr. Holden apparently was not aware of Spencer until this inter partes review (see Ex. 2004, 77:1–3; Tr. 64:1–6), his learning of and relying on a new reference alone is not sufficient reason to disregard, i.e., give no weight to, Mr. Holden’s testimony. Further, the issue here is not whether Mr. Holden is a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather whether his testimony is of value to the panel. See Tr. 64:15– 18. Thus, as indicated in the discussion below, we determine the appropriate weight to give to Mr. Holden’s testimony.” slip op. at 31

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “8 Patent Owner contends that Reed is not analogous art. PO Resp. 29–31. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Reed is not from the same field of endeavor as the challenged claims and that Reed’s teachings are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the recited methods are involved. Id. at 29–30. Because Reed is directed to the manufacture of all types of garments, including footwear (Reply 12–14; see Ex. 1006, 1:33–44), and Reed is related directly to preparation of garments layouts from a knitted textile structure (Reply 14–15; see Ex. 1006, 2:29– 35), we are persuaded that Reed is analogous art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “i. Failure of Proof Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. This includes demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Reed and Nishida to achieve the methods recited in the challenged claims. As noted above, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least three reasons to combine the teachings of Reed and Nishida to achieve the methods recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 12–14; see Tr. 10:12–11:12. First, Petitioner argues that, because Reed teaches that its methods are applicable to “all types of garments” (Ex. 1006, 5:56–57 (emphasis added); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 131), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply the teachings of Reed to the processes and shoe parts of Nishida. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 133). Second, Petitioner argues that, because both Reed and Nishida teach the advantages of reducing cost through the use of computer-controlled knitting machines, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine their teachings. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 134–135). Third, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Reed’s methods for producing textile elements, from which to produce garments, to produce Nishida’s shoe upper patterns. Id. at 13–14; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. However, none of these reasons or any other reason identified by Petitioner addresses the differences between Reed and Nishida, specifically pre-seaming.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 7,814,598 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,814,598
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Wockhardt Bio AG et al. v. Astrazeneca ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · IPR2015-01340 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioners failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 unpatentable under the instituted §103 grounds, chiefly because the proposed modifications lacked a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “C. Credibility of the Experts We give more weight to the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weber, over that of Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Rotella, with respect to testimony that is in direct conflict. We favor Dr. Weber’s testimony because of her extensive experience in the design and development of DP 4 inhibitors for type-2 diabetes treatment. See Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 9–12; Ex. 2210, 1– 2. Moreover, Dr. Weber entered the DP 4 field at the relevant time, i.e., the time of invention, around 2000. Ex. 1073, 108:16–21; Tr. 35:16–22. We find that her testimony has been consistent, not just throughout this proceeding, but also with evidence predating this proceeding. See, e.g., Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 88, 115–118; 154–162; Ex. 1073, 51:2–54:14, 113:6–16, 119:19– 121:9; Ex. 2161, 558.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties’ formulations as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar, and neither side identifies with specificity an error in the opposing side’s formulation. See PO Resp. 21; Pet. Reply 10. On the record presented, we hold that the cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves). Specifically, the references are consistent with the parties’ formulations and demonstrate the level of skill in the art. Our determinations regarding the patentability of the challenged claims would remain the same under either side’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “On the full record before us, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a skilled artisan would have chosen Ashworth I’s compound 25 as a “lead compound.” Although Ashworth I indicates that compounds 24–29 were non-toxic in T cell assays up to 72 hours, and further indicates compound 25 was one among four compounds that were comparable to boroprolines, no further data is provided to guide the skilled artisan to select compound 25 among the other 2-cyanopyrrolidides as a lead compound for further modification to develop a DP 4 inhibitor. Ex. 1007, 1165–66. More importantly, the data reported in Ashworth I was based on in vitro data at room temperature, not in vivo data. PO Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2174, 82:23–83:11). Indeed, Dr. Rotella states, “those studies were carried out at room temperature, which is roughly 20 degrees [Celsius]. I’ll point out that body temperature is higher than that, and that temperature has a direct effect on half-life. As you elevate temperature, you can expect half-life to decrease.” Ex. 2174, 82:23-83:11. Dr. Rotella further admits that he is not aware of any disclosure describing testing of Ashworth compounds in humans. Ex. 2174, 60:23-61:9. In addition, Ashworth I acknowledged that these compounds exhibited an intramolecular cyclization problem and that further work on optimization of the pyrrolidine ring was necessary and would be reported shortly. Ex. 1007, 1163–65. Others in the prior art also continued to seek solutions to the problem of intramolecular cyclization, such as those posed by Ashworth I compounds. See PO Resp. 27–28.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “(4) No Reasonable Expectation of Increasing Stability We are not persuaded that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving increased stability of Ashworth I’s compound 25 based on Hanessian I’s teachings concerning the cyclopropanation of proline. See Pet. 29. There was no disclosure in the prior art of cylopropanating the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25, or any similar compound. Indeed, Dr. Rotella admitted “that there wasn’t anything in the literature prior to the invention of saxagliptin that actually suggested that cyclopropanation of an Ashworth-One type DPP4 inhibitor would improve its stability.” Ex. 2174, 142:3-9. In addition, there is not sufficient evidence as to how the modified cyano-moiety would have been understood to affect compound 25’s stability. Given the structural differences, we find there is insufficient evidence suggesting that the skilled artisan could have reasonably predicted how cyclopropanating compound 25’s P1 group (as opposed to the proline compound discussed in Hanessian I) would have affected the cyano moiety’s (as opposed to the substituent in Hanessian I) orientation in space. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence as to whether that modified orientation would have sufficiently decreased intramolecular cyclization. Indeed, Dr. Rotella testified that: [I]n the process of that modification of orientation in space [when you fuse two rings together], you may observe effects on potency, you may observe effects on solution stability, you may observe other effects on other properties that one might measure in connection with a drug discovery project. Ex. 2174, 119:10–120:2. When asked, “[a]nd those effects might be either positive or negative; correct?” Dr. Rotella replied, “[t]hey might be, yes.” Ex. 2174, 120:3–5. Dr. Rotella also testified that at the time of the invention, the objective of adding a cyclopropyl substituent to the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25 would have been exploratory. He testified: Q. Well, what is the objective of putting the cyclopropane on the molecule, in your opinion? A. There are two possible objectives based on the data -- there are at least two possible objectives based on the data available surrounding compound 25. Q. And what are they? A. One would be to explore whether or not you could improve potency. A second would be whether or not you could improve solution stability. One might also explore how that -- those changes, either by themselves or in combination with two changes, might also improve or change -- sorry -- to improve solid-state stability. Furthermore, since nothing is known, at least at this point in time, about other properties associated with compound 25, you’d want to understand what those properties were and adjust them as need be. Generally speaking, those properties are things that we call, collectively, pharmaceutical properties. Ex. 2174, 115:11–116:13 (emphasis added). This testimony does not sufficiently support Petitioners’ contention that a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected cyclopropanating the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25 to increase its stability.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,186 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs Viii, LLC v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01836 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the prior art did not establish a reasonable expectation of success using lomitapide in the claimed dosing regimen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to reasonable expectation of success, we agree with Patent Owner that the ordinary artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success of combining Pink Sheet with Chang to arrive at the claimed invention. To the extent that Petitioner relies on our Institution Decision, we note that decision was based on the evidence of record at that time. The evidence advanced by Patent Owner during trial, discussed herein, however, tips the scale in favor of a finding different from that set forth in our Institution Decision. slip op. at 36

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “As to Exhibit 1052, which is the Deposition Transcript of S. David Kimball, and which Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner cites in its Reply, Patent Owner argues that it timely objected to the exhibit as an improper duplicate of Exhibit 2304. Mot. Exclude 7. Petitioner responds that Exhibits 2304 and 1052 are the transcripts of Petitioner’s expert. Opp. Mot. Exclude 4. Although acknowledging that the party taking the deposition normally files the transcript, Petitioner asserts that its Reply cites to Ex. 1056, and Patent Owner does not cite to either exhibit. Id. Patent Owner replies that Exhibit 2304 also contains Dr. Kimball’s signed errata sheet and is, thus, the more complete of the two documents. Reply Mot. Exclude. 3. Patent Owner asserts that the citations in Petitioner’s Reply can be updated to reflect the correct exhibit number, if necessary. Id. Given the posture of this proceeding, that is, it is at final written decision, and as Patent Owner notes, the two documents are not exact duplicates, we decline to exclude Ex. 1056, but will allow both Exhibit 1056 and 2034 to remain in the record.” slip op. at 44

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “the unrebutted evidence of commercial success further supports the patentability of the challenged claims. Looking at the entire record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of challenged claims 1‒8 by a preponderance of the evidence over the combination of Pink Sheet and Chang. E. Motion to Amend As discussed above, because we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated the obviousness of the claims by a preponderance of the evidence, we need not reach the merits of Patent Owner’s contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 24). We, thus, dismiss the motion a moot.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “biotechnology and medical device companies.” Id. The press release does not even mention Dr. Stein. Thus, there is nothing in the press release suggesting that the ordinary artisan in the cardiovascular/cardiac field, or interested in MTP inhibitors, should attend the presentation. We, therefore, decline to credit Dr. Mayersohn’s testimony that “[a]person of ordinary skill in the art interested in the development of MTP inhibitors could apparently have attended the meeting or accessed the presentation itself via webcast or on the PPD website shortly thereafter” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 25 (citing the PPD Press Release)), as there was nothing in the press release discussing MTP inhibitors. That finding informs our analysis of the factors set forth in Klopfenstein. Thus, although the ordinary artisan may have been able to copy the presentation, and although there may have been an expectation that the materials could be copied, Petitioner does not provide any evidence establishing that the target audience would have been an ordinary artisan in the relevant field.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,932,268 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,932,268
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs Viii, LLC v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01835 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the prior art did not establish a reasonable expectation of success substituting lomitapide into Pink Sheet’s dosing protocol.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Based on the record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has failed” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “under 35 U.S.C. § 102 “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation not foundMixed

    “Although we find this issue to be very close, we find that the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the ordinary artisan would have looked at other MTP inhibitors, such as lomitapide as taught by Chang, that could be used in the dosing protocol taught by Pink Sheet. Specifically, Pink Sheet teaches a dosing method with the MTP inhibitor, implitamide, wherein, as discussed above, the dosing schedule meets the dosing schedule required by claim 1. Ex. 1013. In addition, Pink Sheet discusses MTP inhibitors generally, and notes that they may have efficacy in situations where high-dose statins are ineffective or inadequate, such as homozygous and severe heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Id. Pink Sheet also acknowledges that the toxicity seen with MTP inhibitors may have been due to the high doses used during the clinical trials. Id. Chang discusses the clinical efficacy of MTP inhibitors, including implitapide (BAY-13-9952) and lomitapide (BMS-201038). Ex. 1015, 566. Specifically, Chang discusses the clinical efficacy of CP-346086, and then notes that similar efficacy was reported for implitapide and lomitapide. Id. Given that implitapide and lomitapide are from the same class of therapeutics, that is, MTP inhibitors, and that they are known to have similar clinical efficacy, based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable basis as to why the ordinary artisan would have substituted lomitapide as taught by Chang for implitapide in the method of Pink Sheet.” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “Initially, we note that Petitioner does not contest that Juxtapid is a commercial success, and, thus, in view of the unrebutted evidence provided by Patent Owner, we find that Patent Owner has established that Juxtapid is a commercial success. As to Petitioner’s argument that the Juxtapid website does not suggest a forced titration, as set forth in our section on claim construction above, we decline to construe independent challenged claim 1 as requiring a forced titration. Moreover, as shown in the table below, the dosing schedule of independent claim 1 encompasses the dosing method that is given to doctors on the Juxtapid website (Ex. 2301, 1):” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,618,135 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,618,135
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00891 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Praxair failed to prove claims 1–16 unpatentable under the three §103 grounds because it did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “sensed in-line gas concentration being used to perform verification of gas supply and gas delivery to a subject or patient into a device receiving gas concentration information from Peters’s handle and memory on the gas supply cylinder in order to verify and control gas delivery to a patient smacks of hindsight reasoning. After considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude that Praxair has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable. Because Praxair’s obviousness analysis for dependent apparatus claims 2–11, as well as the dependent method claims 12–16, asserted in each of the grounds in this proceeding relies on the deficient asserted combination including Bathe and Peters, we similarly are not persuaded that Praxair has sustained its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–16 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “argument and testimony that Peters’s valve could work on Bathe’s cylinder does not explain why or how a person of skill in the art would combine Bathe and Peters, only that they could. PO Resp. 43–44. That Bathe could be modified by simply placing Peters’s valve on the cylinder to control gas flow from the cylinder, does not, alone, satisfy the requirements for combining the prior art. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Experts “testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to her belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so.”). Petitioner’s challenge lacks an adequate motivation, not only to incorporate the smart valve of Peters into Bathe, but also to: (1) repurpose the incorporated valve by using (a) its “memory to store gas data comprising one or more of gas identification, gas expiration date and gas concentration” and (b) its processor and transmitter “to send and receive wireless optical line-of-sight signals to communicate the gas data to the control module that controls gas delivery to a subject” and (2) modify the Bathe system, such that its CPU would receive the wirelessly transmitted gas concentration data, even though the CPU already receives (and uses) flow and operator input data to provide a desired NO concentration. See Ex. 1005, 6:5–20.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “read [Bathe] and been motivated to apply subsequent improvements to component parts of that system, such as the improved valve of [Peters].” Ex. 1002 at ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:11–15). Dr. Stone does not, however, point to any persuasive evidence or disclosure in Bathe, or provide sufficient explanation or reasoning to support this statement. See id. In particular, Dr. Stone does not describe what the “improvements” would have been or provide sufficient rationale as to why Bathe, which already has a connection between a supply cylinder and a gas delivery device and teaches verification of gas concentration from the cylinder by sensor 65 in the delivery system, would be improved by Peters’s manually actuated valve handle and included memory to meet the limitations of the independent claims. See Ex. 1005, 6:11–15. We find Dr. Stone’s testimony deficient as to showing any suggestion in Bathe or otherwise that would have motivated one of skill in the art to add Peters’s valve and memory to Bathe. We are also not persuaded that a person of skill in the art would have” slip op. at 23

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “D. INO’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Stone (Exs. 1002, 2020). Because we do not rely on Dr. Stone’s testimony in a manner adverse to INO, the motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,573,210 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,573,210
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00889 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations because Praxair did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeOther

    “D. INO’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Stone (Exs. 1002, 2020). Because we do not rely on Dr. Stone’s testimony in a manner adverse to INO, the motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Praxair asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and would have had at least two years’ experience in biomedical engineering designing medical gas delivery or monitoring systems.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 17–18). INO does not expressly dispute the general level of skill in the art proffered by Praxair but adds through its declarant, Mr. Warren P. Heim, that one of skill in the art would “know Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Current Good Manufacturing Practices.” Ex. 2021 ¶ 107.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “presented by both parties and the prior art itself, we find that Praxair has not shown a sufficient reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the proposed combination of Bathe, Peters, FR ’804, and the IR Standard. PO Resp. 36–53. INO points out, correctly, that Praxair has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Peters’s smart valve, having a memory for compiling data for billing and invoicing functions, with Bathe. Id. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Praxair’s inability to provide sufficient motivation for combining Peters and Bathe is remedied by the introduction of FR ’804, particularly given that Bathe already included an in-line sensing unit to sense and verify the gas concentration from the cylinder as required by FDA guidance. Id. at 47.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “time of litigation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning”). “Good ideas may well appear ‘obvious’ after they have been disclosed.” Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc., 119 F.3d 953, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the instant case, Praxair’s attempt to transform Bathe from having a sensed in-line gas concentration being used to perform verification of gas supply and gas delivery to a subject or patient into a device receiving gas concentration data from Peters’s handle and memory on the gas supply cylinder in order to verify and control gas delivery to a patient smacks of hindsight reasoning. After considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude that Praxair has failed to carry its burden of” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,573,209 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,573,209
• EMC Corporation v. Acqis LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01462 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 54 and 56–61 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the cited references rendered the claimed PCI transaction communication obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “construction in the Decision on Institution. The evidence indicates that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” refers to a particular industry standard, not just any communication with an interconnected peripheral component. Industry literature and dictionaries use the proper noun “Peripheral Component Interconnect” and the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry specification for a local bus. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2002, 6–7; Ex. 2003, 7–8. The challenged claims recite “Peripheral Component Interconnect” as a proper noun and abbreviate it as “PCI,” indicating that the challenged claims use those terms consistent with the understood industry meaning. Ex. 1001, col. 43, ll. 48–49, col. 44, l. 6; see Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The written description similarly uses the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry standard, and uses the common noun “peripheral bus” to refer to a generic peripheral bus. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 31–33 (“The present invention . . . interface[s] two PCI or PCI-like buses”), with id. at col. 10, ll. 53–55 (“Additionally, the peripheral controller is coupled to a clock control logic, a configuration signal, and a peripheral bus.”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “obvious over Horst and LVDS Owner’s Manual; claims 56 and 59 would have been obvious over Horst, LVDS Owner’s Manual, and Pocrass; and claim 58 would have been obvious over Horst, LVDS Owner’s Manual, and Deters. Pet. 58–59. A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any objective indicia of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 54 and 56–61 would have been obvious over the cited references.” slip op. at 7

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Owner argues that paragraphs 10–24 and 31–37 of Exhibit 1031 should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial because Petitioner relies on those paragraphs to support improper arguments in the Reply. PO Mot. 8. Petitioner argues in the Reply that the TNet transaction in Horst includes PCI address bits, and that claim 54 only requires communicating two bits of a PCI bus transaction. PO Mot. 1. Patent Owner contends that both arguments exceed the scope of a proper reply, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), and that the portions of Exhibit 1031 that Petitioner relies upon to support those arguments should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial. PO Mot. 2–4, 6, 7. Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Patent Owner argues in the Response that the TNet transaction in Horst does not include PCI address bits. PO Resp. 27–29. As such, Petitioner’s argument in the Reply that the TNet transaction includes PCI address bits is responsive to an argument raised in the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (generally permitting a reply to respond to arguments raised in a response). Patent Owner also argues in the Response that claim 54 requires communicating a 32-bit PCI address. PO Resp. 8–11. As such, Petitioner’s argument in the Reply that claim 54 only requires communicating two bits of a PCI bus transaction is responsive to an argument raised in the Response. Because we are not persuaded that the identified arguments in the Reply are improper, the premise of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1031 fails. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude paragraphs 10–24 and 31–37 of Exhibit 1031 is denied.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,041,873 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,041,873
• EMC Corporation v. Acqis LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01469 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24 and 31–33 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove obviousness over either asserted reference combination, including failure to establish Bogaerts as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “a data signal communication with an interconnected peripheral component.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner agrees with the construction in the Decision on Institution that the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” means “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction.” PO Resp. 21–22. We see no reason now to deviate from the construction in the Decision on Institution. The evidence indicates that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” refers to a particular industry standard, not just any communication with an interconnected peripheral component. Industry literature and dictionaries use the proper noun “Peripheral Component Interconnect” and the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry specification for a local bus. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2002, 6–7; Ex. 2003, 7–8. The challenged claims recite “Peripheral Component Interconnect” as a proper noun and abbreviate it as “PCI,” indicating that the challenged claims use those terms consistent with the understood industry meaning. Ex. 1001, col. 27, ll. 24–25, col. 28, ll. 35–36; see Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The written description similarly uses the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry standard, and uses the common noun “peripheral bus” to refer to a generic peripheral bus. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 31–33 (“the present invention may interface two PCI or PCI-like buses”), with id. at col. 7, ll. 4–6 (“Additionally, the host controller is coupled to a clock control logic, a configuration signal, and a peripheral bus.”) (emphasis added). Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Bruce Young, acknowledge that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. Ex. 1003 ¶ 58; Ex. 2006, 1, 3; Ex. 2031, 16:8–12. The evidence Petitioner identifies in support of its proposed construction is the claim construction order issued in ACQIS LLC v. Appro International, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2011). Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1013). In that case, though, the parties did not appear to dispute that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. See Ex. 1013, 7 (“The parties’ primary dispute is whether the term is limited to the conventional, parallel PCI Local Bus, and, therefore excludes PCI Express bus architecture and bus transaction protocol.”). Moreover, the district court subsequently reconsidered its construction and clarified that the term “PCI bus transaction” refers to a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Ex. 1030, 8–10. Therefore, we construe the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction,” and we construe the claim term “PCI bus transaction” to mean “PCI industry standard bus transaction.”” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Horst outputs address and data bits of a PCI bus transaction in serial form over the TNet links. Pet. 31–34. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. The TNet processor interface in Horst translates a CPU transaction into a TNet transaction. Ex. 1009, 5 (“The interface to the destination CPU or I/O device provides mapping and validation hardware translating this virtual TNet address to the appropriate physical memory address.”), Figs. 5, 7; Ex. 2021 ¶ 94 (“The TNet Processor Interface generates TNet transactions from CPU front-side bus transactions.”). The TNet processor interface then encodes the TNet transaction using an 8B/9B encoder so that it can be output over the 9-bit serial TNet links. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48, 146; Ex. 1009, 3, Figs. 3, 4 (showing “8B/9B encoder”), Table 1; Ex. 2021 ¶ 105. Petitioner does not identify persuasive evidence indicating that either the CPU transaction or the TNet transaction is a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1009, 3–8, Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7–9, Table 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159[24C(i)], 159[24C(iv)], 159[24C(v)], 159[31B(i)], 159[31B(iii)]); Ex. 2021 ¶ 129. Thus, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Petitioner points out that, after a TNet transaction is communicated over the TNet links, a TNet bus interface in the console may use information in the TNet transaction to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction if a particular I/O device is connected to a PCI bus. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1009, 7, Fig. 8). But claims 24 and 31 require more than just communicating information over serial channels that subsequently might be used in the console to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Claims 24 and 31, when read in light of the specification, require that the information actually communicated over the serial channels includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Ex. 1001, col. 20, ll. 60–65, col. 21, ll. 15–21, col. 27, ll. 34–38, col. 28, ll. 34–39; Ex. 2022, 15:12–16:2, 22:11–16. As discussed above, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “The evidence identified by Patent Owner indicates that the date “2 October 1996” on Bogaerts is when it was submitted to the CERN/LHCC committee. Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 170, 171, 173; Ex. 2026, 12. Although it is possible that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library at or around the same time, Petitioner has not shown that by a preponderance of the evidence. For example, Petitioner does not cite persuasive evidence indicating that the “Submitted by 2 Oct 1996” entry in the CERN Document Server record means that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library on that date. Tr. 23:1–12, 25:5–25; Pet. Reply 21–25. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the CERN Document Server record itself was not created until December 18, 2014. Tr. 25:5–25; Ex. 2011, 439. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Bogaerts is a prior art printed publication based on its availability in the CERN Library.” slip op. at 17

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “should be excluded for lack of authentication under Fed. R. Evid. 901. PO Mot. 2–6. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires that the proponent produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent claims it is. Here, Patent Owner does not dispute that Exhibit 1011 is what Petitioner claims it is, namely a reference entitled “RD24 Status Report: Application of the Scalable Coherent Interface to Data Acquisition at LHC.” Id. What Patent Owner disputes is whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Bogaerts is prior art with respect to the ’814 patent. Id. Patent Owner attempts to characterize this dispute as a question of authentication, arguing that Petitioner has not produced “evidence that [Exhibit 1011] is a true and correct copy of a publication that was publicly available as of the date asserted by Petitioner.” Id. at 3. But this is a question of sufficiency of proof, not admissibility. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1011 is denied.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS RE42,814 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham

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.