• Orthocision, Inc. v. PTL Opco LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted § 103 ground because Petitioner did not adequately explain how or why the prior art would be combined.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Bovinet, uses a slightly different, but not materially so, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan than Petitioner. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 13. Thus, the parties appear to agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience. We accept and adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’129 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “3. Summary on Claim Construction We maintain our earlier constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . .” See DI 16–24. We determine that no other express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. Although we maintain here our constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . ,” we do so only for the sake of completeness. These claim constructions, ultimately, are not determinative of the outcome of this proceeding because, regardless of the meaning of any claim term, including these disputed terms, we find that Petitioner fails to adequately explain why any claim would have been obvious under the asserted grounds. We explain this in detail below. C.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Ex. 1001, 6:28–38 (emphasis added). However, the language of claim 1 is very clear on the functionality of the “open tip,” expressly reciting that “the open tip cuts bone tissue away from the sacrum or the ilium.” Id. at 13:19– 20. Thus, the claim language itself provides the required functionality of the “open tip,” and we do not agree with Petitioner that additional functionality relating to where bone tissue might go once cut, as discussed in the Specification, should be read into the claims as a limitation. Patent Owner’s newly proposed interpretation is similar to Petitioner’s in that it requests addition of functionality discussed as an example in the Specification, but not recited in the claim’s expressly recited functional language relating to the “open tip.” We disagree with Patent Owner that the concept of dislodged tissue entering a void defined by the open tip is necessary to understanding the claim element. And, once more, Patent Owner reads too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that the recited “open tip” language requires that we further clarify that any interior void defined by the open tip is on the interior of the abrading head, and behind the exterior abrading surfaces, or between interior surfaces of a first pair of opposing sides, as proposed by Patent Owner. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification . . . , it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. . . . [T]he claims define the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581–82 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112 ¶ 6) if, as here, it explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional language; this presumption is overcome if the limitation further includes the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Here, the word “means” is recited, followed by functional language, and the claim recites no structure associated with the means or function. Moreover, the parties agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Resp. 9. We find “releasing means” is a means plus function limitation and, based on the plain language of the claim, the recited “releasing means” is a part of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17. Construing a claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) involves two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function; and then (2) determining what structure, if any, disclosed in the Specification corresponds to the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. In conducting this analysis, we may not incorporate structure from the written description beyond that which is necessary to perform the claimed function. See Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,020,129 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,020,129
• Pioneer Pet Products, LLC v. Oil-Dri Corporation Of AmericaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00691 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable under any of the three §103 grounds because the Petition failed to establish a required limitation for each combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “For purposes of the present invention, the term “removably clumpable” refers to a litter that, when exposed to a wetting agent forms one or more clumps having a firmness of sufficient structural integrity and hardness to withstand mechanical separation from unwetted litter for disposal. A litter material having a clump strength of ≤1.33 using the Standard Drop Method Test (described below) 30 seconds, 1 hour, 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours or 72 hours after the clump is formed by exposure to a liquid is removably clumpable. A litter that is removably clumpable, i.e., has a clump strength of ≤ 1.33 using the Standard Drop Method Test, has a clump strength that is substantially the same as a litter comprised of only the sodium bentonite of the litter. PO Resp. 23–24 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:24–36). Patent Owner contends that this passage makes clear that it “defined the term ‘removably clumpable’ to mean a litter having a clump strength of ≤ 1.33 using the Standard Drop Method Test at various times after the clump has formed.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:24–36, 11:5–7). Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner abandoned the claim construction it proposed in the Petition in its pre- Institution Decision Preliminary Reply, and that Petitioner now agrees with Patent Owner’s proposal, which we adopted in the Institution Decision. Id. (citing Paper 8, 1; Ex. 2012, 23:13–24:1).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although Mr. Raymond opines that “a PHOSITA would have clearly understood” that the combination satisfies the limitation, his opinion lacks adequate explanation to support his conclusion. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 139. 8 Patent Owner contends that in order to perform the calculation necessary to determine compliance with the 47% of the total external surface area limitation, the “loose fill bulk density” and “particle size distributions” (not mere average particle sizes) must be known. See PO Resp. 6. Petitioner disagrees, but attempted to follow the method set forth in the ’393 patent in its argument and evidence filed in connection with its Reply. See Tr. 8:15– 9:8. Petitioner does not meet its burden to show the combination teaches a limitation by simply stating that a PHOSITA would recognize that the limitation would be met, without explaining how or providing the data necessary to test the assertion. Because neither the Petition nor the declaration of Mr. Raymond identifies any particle sizes for the cellulose-containing filler material it relies on or any method of calculating the total surface area of the litter formulation, without that information, Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would have inherently, or necessarily, met the 47% of the total external surface area limitation.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Our rules also state that a “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also PTAB Consolidated Patent Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 21, 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf, 73 (“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.”). Because of the governing statute, rule, and case law, “an IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369–70 (concluding that reply brief and accompanying declaration exceeded the proper scope of reply due to introduction of new theories and reliance on new evidence); Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286–87 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the petitioner improperly shifted its position away from that in the petition by relying on a different portion of a prior art reference and proposed modification). In other situations, “a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.” Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1383–84 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (summarizing cases). Accordingly, “there is no blanket prohibition against the introduction of new evidence during an IPR.” Id. at 1384. In some situations, for example, a reply may permissibly expand upon previously-made arguments in the petition without amounting to the introduction of a new rationale and without citing new evidence. See Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 901 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018). slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,439,393 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,439,393
• Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00740 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–13, 15, and 17–20 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds, chiefly because Lambert did not teach system-selected virtual bus stops.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill. We find that Petitioner’s level of skill is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’411 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to the backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system, as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 6–7; see also PO Resp. 20–23. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’411 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 20–23. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent to explain why the art of the ’411 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components in determining the relevant skill in the art. See id.; see also Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’411 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art for a patent that never even uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems, as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems, would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’411 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews’s testimony that he has experience in “locationbased systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. This experience demonstrates that Mr. Andrews had at least two years of experience in “optimization modeling.” The parties agree, however, that Mr. Andrews does not have experience working with ride-sharing systems. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s definition includes artisans who lack that particular experience. Specifically, Patent Owner’s definition provides that: A person with an advanced degree (a master’s or Ph.D.) in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics or a related field and a focus on data science, artificial intelligence or operations research would also have been an ordinary artisan in the field of the ’411 patent even if that person lacked two years of specific experience with ride-sharing systems. PO Resp. 20 (emphases added). In other words, even if the first prong of Patent Owner’s definition requires the expert’s experience to be “in the context of ride-sharing systems,” Mr. Andrews would nevertheless satisfy the qualifications of a POSITA under the second prong, which does not require experience with “ride-sharing systems.” See id. This Decision does not turn on the differences between the parties’ characterization of a skilled artisan.” slip op. at 15

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

    “The parties are in agreement. Despite the parties’ briefing on this term, the parties do not dispute the construction of “virtual bus stops.” Absent any controversy, we adopt the parties agreed-upon construction of the term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))). Specifically, we adopt the parties’ construction that “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” Compare PO Resp. 23, with Pet. Reply 4. We further adopt the parties’ construction that the system need not use artificial intelligence—whatever that may mean—to select the virtual bus stops. Compare PO Sur-reply 5, with Pet. Reply 4; see also supra § III.A (“[W]e need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never even uses the term.”).” slip op. at 18

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

    “performs actions (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:49–52; 2:63–67, 3:19–20, 3:34–35), we decline to infer from Lambert’s single sentence (id. at 4:17–23) that Lambert’s server is also programmed to perform the step of “dynamically selecting pickup and dropoff locations” (i.e., virtual bus stops). In other words, if Lambert’s server was programmed to select pickup and dropoff locations, as Petitioner would have us believe, we find that Lambert’s disclosure would have stated so. It does not.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 10,197,411 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,197,411
• Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00286 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to teach or render obvious system-selected virtual bus stops and a pair of associated stops.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Discussion We have considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, and we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’824 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 10–11; see also PO Resp. 31–32. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’824 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 31–32. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent in determining the relevant skill in the art to explain why the art of the ’824 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components. See id.; Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’824 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims, without support, that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that an artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’824 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Having addressed the relevant skill in the art, we address Patent Owner’s contention that Mr. Andrews “is not qualified to offer opinions concerning the artificial intelligence components of a ride-sharing system that are at issue in the ’824 patent.” PO Resp. 37. As discussed previously, we disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and have adopted Petitioner’s position. Patent Owner does not offer an opinion as to whether Mr. Andrews would be qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition. The record reflects that Mr. Andrews possessed an advanced degree in electronic engineering, had a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems, and had more than two years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces, and databases at the time of the ’824 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19; Ex. 1009. Therefore, we find that Mr. Andrews is qualified to offer opinions as a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’824 patent under the relevant definition. Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews testimony that he has experience in “location-based systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. Furthermore, given Mr. Andrews’s advanced degree, Patent Owner’s definition would allow Mr. Andrews to have less than two years of experience in the pertinent fields. PO Resp. 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther

    “Under these circumstances, where the parties now agree that the ordinary meaning should apply to “virtual bus stops” and the district court adopted the same approach, we see no reason to depart from applying the ordinary meaning in this proceeding. We therefore apply the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by the parties, where “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” As to the construction of dependent claim 8, we agree with Patent Owner that we need not formally construe the term to resolve the issues before us. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))). As to Petitioner’s remaining arguments, we do not read artificial intelligence or other limitations into the claims as Petitioner warns against, and Petitioner does not argue for any specific construction in relation to these arguments that would require us to resolve a specific claim construction dispute. See Pet. Reply 4–10.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1004, 4:17–23. The Petition does not cite to any declarant support, additional prior art, other embodiments in Lambert, or any obviousness analysis when addressing “virtual bus stops.” See Pet. 25. Although for later aspects of claim 1 the Petition relies on Poykko and an obviousness analysis when arguing that it would have been obvious to configure Lambert’s server to operate in a certain way (e.g., to access memory that includes a database of locations as taught by Poykko), the Petition does not rely on such an analysis when first addressing “virtual bus stops” alone. See id. The combination of Lambert’s statement above with Poykko and other aspects of Lambert, potentially with allegedly obvious modifications of Lambert, may serve as the basis of Petitioner’s arguments for these later limitations involving “virtual bus stops,” but these later allegations do not reach back and redefine Petitioner’s more limited argument with respect to “virtual bus stops” in isolation.8 To the extent Petitioner argues in its Reply that a combination of Lambert and Poykko or other obviousness arguments 8 In our Institution Decision, we noted that Patent Owner, at that stage of the proceeding, failed to properly address Petitioner’s proposed combination of Lambert and Poykko for various “virtual bus stop” limitations. Inst. Dec. 22–23. That said, we do not view the Petition’s arguments and evidence as to “virtual bus stops” limitation in isolation, prior to addressing the “memory” limitation and adding Poykko and obviousness to the analysis, as relying on a combination of Lambert and Poykko or obviousness. See Pet. 25. satisfy the “virtual bus stops” limitation, we agree with Patent Owner that this introduces an improper new theory in the Reply. See PO Sur-reply 20– 22.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,816,824 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,816,824
• Lti Flexible Products, Inc. D/B/A Boyd Corporation v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01189 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable because MacDonald was not prior art and the petition failed to establish anticipation or obviousness; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “The full record makes clear that the parties do not dispute the portion of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill regarding education and years of experience. Compare Pet. 14–15, with PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner acknowledges that the analysis does not depend on whether Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill or Patent Owner’s proposal is adopted. See PO Resp. 3–4; Ex. 2003 ¶ 34 (testifying that Patent Owner’s declarant has an understanding of the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art irrespective of which proposed skill level is adopted), ¶ 35. The parties’ proposals are consistent with the factors of GPAC, the disclosure of the ’728 patent, and the prior art of record. Ex. 1012 ¶ 71 (testifying that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is based on considering the factors of GPAC); Ex. 2003 ¶ 32 (testifying that Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is based on the ’728 patent); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. In view of the above, we see no reason to disturb our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field that includes thermal sciences; and (2) at least two years of industrial experience on the design and evaluation of thermal management of electronic systems and heat pipes/TGPs.” Pet. 14–15; Ex. 1012 ¶ 71; Ex. 2003 ¶ 35. We agree with Patent Owner that the analysis would not be affected by adopting Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 3–4; Ex. 2003 ¶ 35.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner contends that “the ordinary and customary meaning of the term ‘pitch’ in [c]laim 9 encompasses the definition of ‘pitch’ given in [c]laim 1—‘a distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microfabricated structure.’” Pet. 15. No claim term was interpreted expressly for our Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 10. Patent Owner does not propose expressly any interpretation for any claim term. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner, however, states that “claim 1 of the ’728 Patent expressly defines the claimed ‘pitch’ of the microfabricated structures as being ‘a distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microstructure.’” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:45–48). Patent Owner notes that “[c]laim 9 does not include this particular definition, but the Board apparently applied the definition of the ‘pitch’ limitation in claim 1 to claim 9, as did Petitioner.” Id. “Patent Owner does not dispute or disagree with this.” Id. Based on the full record and because the parties do not dispute it, we apply the definition of pitch in claim 1 to the recited pitch of claim 9. Also, based on the full record, we determine that no other claim term requires express interpretation. 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 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner appears to be seeking verbatim support, when, as argued by Patent Owner, the Specification does not need to provide exact or verbatim support to meet the written description requirement. See Pet. 20; PO Resp. 32. One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately discerned that 5–500 microns is well within 2–1500 microns calculated by Petitioner using the parent applications’ claim 2. See Pet. 21–22; PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2003 ¶ 47. The numerical differences between the derived and claimed ranges do not address sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would not discern the claimed range. See Pet. 20. As determined above, the disclosure would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed “distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microfabricated structure” has a range of values, such as the 2– 1500 microns calculated by Petitioner. See id. at 22. The numerical differences between the calculated ranges and the claimed ranges alone fail to show that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have discerned the claimed range of 5–500 microns from the range of 2–1500 microns.” slip op. at 42

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

    “Patent Owner responds that “[b]ecause MacDonald does not qualify as prior art against the claims of the ‘728 Patent, Petitioner has failed to show that the challenged claims of the ‘728 Patent . . . would have been obvious over MacDonald in view of Ding.” PO Resp. 40. No reply arguments are presented specifically for the obviousness challenge. See generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. For the reasons given above, we agree with Patent Owner that MacDonald is not prior art to the ’728 patent. PO Resp. 39. Accordingly, based on the full record, Petitioner fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that MacDonald and Ding would have rendered obvious claims 2, 3, and 7.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 10,309,728 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,309,728
• Oticon Medical AB / Oticon Medical LLC et al. v. Cochlear LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00975 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14, 16, 17, 25, 28, 33–35, 37–41, and 45–47 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a rationale to combine Westerkull ’794 and Choi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “At the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that the differences between the parties’ assertions regarding the level of skill in the art would not be dispositive. Tr. 25:12–26:11. In view of the lack of material dispute on this issue, we adopt Patent Owner’s asserted level of skill, which we find to be supported by the testimony of Dr. Rentschler. See Ex. 2037 ¶¶ 54–55; see also Tr. 26:10–11 (Counsel for Petitioner: “We agree that the issues really here are highly mechanical.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We now turn to the issue of whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. Petitioner argues that the preamble recites an intended use because the body of claim 1 recites the structural limitations but the preamble does not. Pet. Supp. Br. 3. Petitioner also argues that the preamble recites an intended use because, in another case between the same parties involving a different claim relating to the same subject matter, the court concluded that the preamble recited an intended use. Id. at 3 (citing Cochlear Bone Anchored Sols. AB v. Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Patent Owner argues that the preamble is limiting because the phrase “the bone” has its antecedent basis in the phrase “a skull bone” in the preamble. PO Supp. Br. 3 (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). We determine, as a matter of reading the words of the claim, that the antecedent basis for “the bone” is “a skull bone” in the preamble of claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 5:56–57. Accordingly, we determine that the preamble is limiting. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 436 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“anode gel” was understood to be the antecedent basis for “said zinc anode”).9 In other words, it is a requirement that the prosthesis is structured so that it is appropriate for being anchored into the skull bone. See Catalina 9 Patent Owner also argues that the cases relied on in the Petition to argue that the preamble is not limiting stand for the opposite proposition because, in those cases, the preambles were limiting because they introduced or defined terms later used in the claims. PO Supp. Br. 4 n.1 (citing Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). We agree with Patent Owner that the statement of law in the Petition, i.e., that a preamble may recite an intended use when the body of the claim recites all structural elements (see Pet. 19), is not dispositive of this case because the body of the claim refers back to the preamble. Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.”). 2. the preamble: “bone fixture configured to anchor to bone” (claim 8) For similar reasons as for the preamble of claim 1, we determine that the preamble of claim 8 is limiting, i.e., because it provides antecedent basis for “the bone” in the body of the claim. However, the preamble of claim 8 only refers to “bone” and not to “a skull bone” and therefore does not itself impose a limitation of a “skull bone.” Compare Ex. 1001, 6:22, with id. at 5:56–57.” slip op. at 12

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

    “means “a channel, distinct from the screw thread and distinct from the flange, extending around the cylindrical portion of the main body of the anchor, having an inner diameter and an outer diameter.” Pet. 20. Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill would understand that a circumferential groove is provided to “exert a compressive radial force on the skull bone to improve stability of the anchoring fixture.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). The District Court construed “circumferential groove” to mean “a narrow channel extending around the cylindrical periphery of the main body of the implant.” Ex. 3001, 33.10” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “In response to our question inviting further briefing, Petitioner submits that “periphery” refers to the widest portion of the fixture inserted into the skull and distinct from the flange. See Pet. Reply 2. Patent Owner does not comment on the question. See PO Resp. 15–17. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to further construe the term “periphery.” See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims are construed only to the extent necessary to resolve a dispute). 4. “wherein the anchoring fixture is configured for anchoring a hearing” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,838,807 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,838,807
• Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Huber Engineered Woods LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 5, 2020 · IPR2019-00919 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable: APA does not disclose the claimed panel-joint sealant, and the proposed combinations fail to establish the required limitations or motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “In our Decision to Institute, we determined that a POSITA “would have had a degree in civil engineering, building, material, wood science, or other degree, if such other degree required coursework or experience in the pertinent technology and two years of industry experience or equivalent therein.” Inst. Dec. 14. We further determined, “Additional education, such as an advanced degree, could offset less work experience, and additional work experience could offset less education or coursework.” Id. Patent Owner adopts the level of a POSITA set forth in our Decision to Institute. PO Resp. 13 (“HEW adopts the Board’s definition of a POSA.”). Petitioner does not address our definition in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. We maintain the level of a POSITA that we provided in our Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 14

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

    “1. Claim 11 Independent claim 11 recites the step of “positioning” wall panels, where each panel comprises a “barrier layer.” Ex. 1001, 22:49–63. The claim further requires the separate step of “fastening” each panel assembly to a building structure. Id. As a matter of logic, the panels cannot be fastened onto the structure until they have first been positioned. See Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398– 99 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] claim ‘requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires’ an order of steps.”). Accordingly, claim 11’s step of “positioning at least two wall panel assemblies” occurs before the step of “fastening each panel assembly to the structure.” Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 3:59–61, Fig. 10 (depicting a flow diagram of the steps included in the manufacture of a panel for roof or wall sheathing). Furthermore, because the “positioning” step of the claim requires each of its panels to have “a barrier layer secured to the outer surface of each panel,” it logically follows that the panels have barrier layers before the panels are fastened to the structure. For the foregoing reason, we interpret claim 11 to require the “adjacent structural wall panels” to each have a “barrier layer secured to the outer surface of each panel” before the panels are fastened to the structure, and before the joint between the edges of the adjacent panels are sealed.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Despite the disagreement between Patent Owner and Petitioner regarding the meaning of the claimed “barrier layer secured to the outer surface of each panel,” construing this claim phrase is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (internal citation omitted)). Rather, we determine that the only claim that requires construction is method claim 11.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,546,479 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,546,479
• Becton, Dickinson And Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01588 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 12, 13, 20–23, and 29 not shown unpatentable under any of four § 103 combinations; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Because the term “means” is not used, there is a presumption that the limitation is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6, and Petitioner has not overcome this presumption. See Williamson, LLC, 792 F.3d at 1349 (explaining that the presumption is overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function’”) (internal citation omitted). The claims do not simply recite a “needle protective device,” without more, but explicitly require that the “needle protective device [be] positioned proximally of the valve and at least in part around the needle and distal of a proximal end of the second hub in a ready position and configured to prevent unintended needle sticks in a protective position.” Ex. 1001, 13:58– 61 (emphasis added to structural limitations of claim 12); see also id. at 14:51–55 (reciting similar structure in independent claim 23). Petitioner fails to address these structural limitations in its proposed claim construction, instead focusing only on the three words “needle protective device.” See Pet. 11–15. Moreover, Petitioner’s proposed construction would seemingly render superfluous several of these other claimed structural features. As argued by Patent Owner, we determine that the needle protective device limitation recites sufficient structure. Mr. Meyst explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that the claimed ‘needle protective device’ refers to the class of structures included in safety IV catheters that prevent unintended needle-sticks by covering (i.e., protecting or guarding) the needle tip.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 56 (citing Ex. 2014, which is cited in the ’735 patent). We find Mr. Meyst’s testimony persuasive.” slip op. at 13

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

    “of the claimed limitation. Here, the claims require the “arm” to extend distally of the third hub. Ex. 1001, 13:34–14:59. “[I]n determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance.” See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). In consulting general dictionary definitions, including that submitted by Petitioner (Ex. 1008), we find “arm” to be defined as: “any armlike part or attachment, as the tone arm of a phonograph” (www.dictionary.com (last visited Nov. 13, 2017) (emphasis added)); “[a] part attached to or projecting from something” (Ex. 1008); “a long thin piece that is connected to the main part of a machine, structure, etc., and that looks or moves like a human arm” (www.learnersdictionary.com (last visited Nov. 13, 2017) (emphases added)). We also consult the prosecution history of record. In an amendment dated February 7, 2013, the applicant asserted that “[t]he scope of independent claims [1 and 23] can be found in FIGs. 13 and 14 of the instant application and corresponding written description.” Ex. 1010, 10. We now review the Specification, namely, Figures 13 and 14 and their accompanying description. We find that these figures depict an “arm” extending distally of a “third hub,” and to illustrate this structure, we reproduce Figure 13 of the ’247 patent, below: The ’247 patent describes: The third housing 204 incorporates a pair of arms 210 each comprising a hook 212. The two hooks 212 are configured to engage the two bumps 36 to retain the third housing 204 to the catheter hub 14 in a ready to use position. The two arms 210 are preferably flexible to provide a gripping force against the two bumps 36, which is higher than the frictional force to withdraw the needle through the tip protector 202, hemostatic valve 46, and catheter 12. Alternatively the two arms 210 can be biased radially outward to increase the gripping force. Further, the two arms can be biased inwardly against the needle shaft to decrease the gripping force after the needle is withdrawn proximal of the arms 210. Ex. 1001, 11:33–45 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner disputes our initial determination of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), and we see no reason to revisit it here. See, generally, PO Resp.; see also, generally, Pet. Reply. Accordingly, and as explained in our Decision to Institute, we determine that a POSITA would be either a medical practitioner (e.g., a nurse or doctor) having at least some experience with vascular catheter devices, or a person with a technical degree (e.g., associate’s degree in engineering or physics) and having at least some experience with vascular catheter devices. Paper 8, 17–18.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered Callaway in its entirety, and after weighing the competing testimony of Mr. Griffis and Mr. Meyst, we agree with Patent Owner and credit its expert that Callaway’s “third hub” 21 would do “nothing more than hold the spring clip in place until the needle is withdrawn,” and that the “only embodiment in which the inner catheter hub (21) potentially adds any needle protection is in the Critikon version” (PO Resp. 35), which does not integrate Woehr-630’s safety clip (Ex. 1004 ¶ 62), and which Petitioner does not rely on (see Pet. 26–27). Accordingly, because Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Callaway teaches Woehr-630’s spring clip retained in hub 21 after the needle is withdrawn, Petitioner has not shown that claims 12, 13, 20–23, and 29 are unpatentable over Woehr, Callaway, and Sutton.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 8,460,247 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,460,247
• Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00768 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Eng Soon and Constantin; claims 4, 6, and 7 were not shown unpatentable over Eng Soon, Constantin, and Olson because the asserted combinations were not adequately …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Smith, on the other hand, testifies that Constantin does not disclose an actuator having a receptacle and “Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s argument that Constantin teaches that one could switch the location of stud 15 and orifice 16 is not supported.” Ex. 2040 ¶¶ 65–66. Mr. Smith further testifies that “Constantin does not describe the location of stud 15 and orifice 16 as a ‘preferred embodiment.’ . . . Constantin’s disclosure does not disclose or suggest that stud 15 could be switched for orifice 16 on the other shutter blade.” Id. ¶ 68. Having considered Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s competing evidence and argument, we agree with Patent Owner and credit Mr. Smith’s testimony. Specifically, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Constantin teaches, discloses, or suggests its orifice as being attached to its actuator, as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 49. Petitioner’s assertion is premised on a misapprehension of Constantin’s claim 5.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Having established that Constantin does not teach, disclose, or suggest an orifice attached to its actuator, we also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s argument that a POSITA would have modified Eng Soon’s structure so as “to fix the pin on the bottom of the gate as taught by Constantin.” Pet. 54 (emphasis added). Because Petitioner has not shown Constantin teaches or suggests such structure and has failed to provide adequate explanation for why one would have modified Constantin, Petitioner’s reasoning is insufficient.” slip op. at 22

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “The Board may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing confidential information.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). Upon considering the content of the Exhibits, including those redacted versions, and Petitioner’s representations as to the confidentiality of the information, we determine that Petitioner has shown good cause for sealing Exhibit 1016 in its entirety and the redacted portions of the Exhibits 2010, 2012, 2013, 2020–2024, 2029, 2032, 2033, 2039, and 2044, which redacted versions have been submitted as Exhibits 1025–1037. Id. at ii. slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,585,341 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,585,341
• Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00127 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed prior-art modifications lacked adequate support and rational underpinning.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The basis of disagreement boils down to an evaluation of a skilled artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’079 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’079 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively).” Id. at 2:34–39. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13).” slip op. at 22

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

    “We observe that Patent Owner relies on content of the ’079 patent at column 11, lines 31–34 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’079 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’079 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:31–34. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’079 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’079 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction.” slip op. at 7

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

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that are “integrally joined to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently discloses that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally. Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja also inadequately explain why combination of Luthi ’202’s teachings with those of either Luthi ’800 or Chan would result in the above-noted “central cavity” as a part of the directional element of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. Although Luthi ’800 and Chan may show spaces or cavities in components of their shoes, there appear substantial differences in the designs of those shoes, and in particular the cushioning aspects, as compared with Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. We credit Dr. Hinrichs’s and Dr. Luthi’s testimony that the presence of such a cavity as shown in Luthi ’800 and Chan would prove detrimental to the medial-lateral stability of Luthi ’202’s shoe, and specifically the directional element of such a shoe that is depicted in Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 42; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 11–13. To that end, we also find inadequate Petitioner’s general position that combining the teachings of Luthi ’202, Luthi ’800, and Chan would result simply in a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art . . .” Pet. 35. We are not persuaded that any such combination would yield the “predictable results” advanced by Petitioner, or that “well within the knowledge and skill” of an artisan cited by Petitioner constitutes rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (An assertion of unpatentability based on “obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,339,079 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,339,079

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.