- PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00933 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claim 1 under all four asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claim is anticipated or obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The two proposed definitions of the ordinarily skilled artisan are very similar, except that Patent Owner’s description more-specifically defines the field of experience of the artisan. At this stage in the proceedings, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, as being both generally unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s supplemental definition. It appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” includes Patent Owner’s proposed level of experience. Pet. 12–13. We also take into account the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as 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)). Our decision whether to institute does not turn on which party’s definition of the skilled artisan is used, and our determinations would be unchanged if we applied Patent Owner’s supplemented definition. Further, we note that evidence may be presented as the case progresses to support some other proposed definition of the skilled artisan, which may influence our determination of this issue. C.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner states, “Petitioner does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not mention claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage in the proceedings, and for the purposes of this decision, we find it unnecessary to construe the language of claim 1 because the claim language is readily understandable on its face and there is no dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 the case continues, we may determine that certain claim language should be interpreted. D.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In view of the unique record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that all of the references relied on by Petitioner here, “were previously presented to the Office” as required by § 325(d) and Advanced Bionics. Prelim. Resp. 19. Accordingly, we proceed to part two of the analysis.” slip op. at 55
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied
“DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) AND FINTIV Patent Owner points to § 314(a) as a basis for denying institution, but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 17–32; see generally Prelim. Sur-Reply 6. Under certain circumstances, the Board may apply our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution in light of a parallel district court proceeding involving the same patent. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). But, as noted by Petitioner, the patent at issue here “has never been asserted in any litigation.” Pet. 49. Accordingly, we also decline to exercise our discretion under Section 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 61
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,732,149 - PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-01017 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“discretionarily deny institution under §314(a) when a petitioner submits a so-called Sotera stipulation, i.e., the petitioner “stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Memorandum 7 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020- 01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Such a stipulation mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting PTAB and district-court decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and PTAB. Id. Patent Owner contends that in light of “parallel District Court Litigation,” i.e., NorthStar Sys. LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, No. 2:22-cv-00496-JRG (E.D. Tex.), the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of denying institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Prelim. Resp. 20–26. Petitioner responds that discretionary denial is not appropriate because it “has stipulated that if the Board institutes IPR on this Petition, it will not pursue 9 Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_m emo_20220621_.pdf or reasonably could have raised’ during this proceeding.” Pet. Prelim. Reply 1 (citing Sotera, Paper 12 at 18–19; Ex. 1021). Under the mandatory Fintiv guidance discussed above, this stipulation is dispositive. Memorandum 7. Patent Owner responds, however, that Petitioner “should not be credited with this stipulation as it has come at the eleventh hour.” PO Prelim. Sur-Reply 2. Petitioner submitted its Sotera stipulation to Patent Owner by email dated September 22, 2023, several days after Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response.10 Patent Owner has not brought to our attention any binding precedent that establishes a time limit by which a Sotera stipulation must be submitted before we enter our decision on institution, and we are not aware of any such precedent. Nor does Patent Owner allege that it has been prejudiced by the timing of the stipulation.11 Therefore, we are not persuaded that we should disregard Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation because of its timing.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’943 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–26 of the ’943 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Second, Patent Owner improperly interprets the term “OVI” to require distance information. At the outset we note that Patent Owner has not expressly requested that any claim terms should be construed in this proceeding. See supra Section II.D. Patent Owner apparently reads the embedded term “vector” in isolation rather than as part of the term “object vector indicator.” See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray.”); Trivascular, Inc. v. 13 Patent Owner alleges that “[t]he placement of the ‘south’ icon is likely hard coded as static information and therefore not computed by Kreitler.” Prelim. Resp. 12. This allegation is unsupported attorney argument to which we give little weight. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). without considering the context in which those terms appear is not reasonable). Even if “vector,” read in isolation, means something akin to a “Euclidean vector” that would arguably contain both a “magnitude” (which we understand Patent Owner to mean distance) and a direction, an “OVI” would not necessarily contain this exact information. Moreover, defining “OVI” to contain both distance and direction would render superfluous the language in claim 1 that expressly requires the created OVI to “contain[] the distance . . . information.” See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (construing a claim in a way that renders a term superfluous is “a methodology that [our reviewing court] has denounced”). We discern no reason to limit the claim language in such a way. Construing “OVI” as a “Euclidian vector” that necessarily contains both distance and direction information would also be contrary to the ’943 patent’s written description. The written description indicates that the word “vector” is broader than “Euclidean vector,” in that it may simply be an “arrow” that is “pointing in the direction of the referenced remote location marker.” Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:4. The written description states that “[i]nformation displayed in the OVI . . . may include a vector (e.g. arrow) pointing in the direction of the referenced remote location marker, the distance and travel time to the remote location marker.” (Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:3 (emphasis added)), indicating that such information is optional rather than always present.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that the combination of Kreitler, Altman690, and Suomela teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1, that the asserted references constitute analogous art, that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the references, and such a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 6– 22. Petitioner supports its contentions with citations to Kreitler, Altman690, Suomela, and Dr. Rosenberg’s declaration. Id. Turning to the elements of claim 1, Petitioner contends that Kreitler in combination with Altman690 teaches the preamble of claim 1 and limitations 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e and 1f. Pet. 23–32 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:38–46, 2:20–24, 5:36–37, 6:43–45, 6:50–55, 6:67–7:4, 10:27–29, 12:3–10, 12:16– 18, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 15; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 8, 9, 41, 55, 77, Fig. 8B; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101– 114, 116–118). Petitioner contends, for example, that Kreitler’s special icon 110 corresponds to the claimed OVI that is placed in a position corresponding to an off-map MO. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:43–62, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 97). Petitioner further contends that “Altman690 discloses a social-networking system for displaying electronic maps with icons representing real-time locations of social network users and POIs.” “a POSITA would have found it obvious and advantageous to include Altman690’s social-networking functionality within Kreitler’s location-based items to enable sharing/accessing POIs between users.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). For limitations 1e and 1g, Petitioner relies on Kreitler individually and in combination with Suomela. Pet. 29–30, 32–34 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:36–41, 6:43–45, 6:51–57, Fig. 1; Ex. 1007, Abstract, 2:1–15, 4:34–41, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 115, 119–123). Petitioner asserts, for example, that Suomela “expressly discloses displaying both distance and travel-related information,” and specifically discloses “‘a digital map’ including objects ‘in a peripheral portion’ representing off-map locations, placed according to the direction to the off-map locations.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 2:1–15, 4:34–41, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121–122). According to Petitioner, “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to add Suomela’s distance and travel-related information to Kreitler[’s OVI] to provide further helpful information to a user.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). Petitioner further contends that: The ’943, Kreitler, Altman609, and Suomela are all in the field of mapping on electronic devices. All four address the known problem of displaying MO information, with Kreitler, Altman609, and Suomela disclosing known solutions, the combination of which yields predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine Kreitler, Altman690, and Suomela for a more effective and efficient navigation system showing POIs on electronic maps.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,014,943 - PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00934 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, including claims 1, 13, and 18 over Kreitler and Suomela.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“(setting out six nonexclusive factors that the Board may consider in determining whether to deny institution because of a parallel district-court proceeding). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s June 21, 2022 Memorandum titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (“Memorandum”).11 The Memorandum sets forth, inter alia, that the Board will not discretionarily deny institution under §314(a) when a petitioner submits a so-called Sotera stipulation, i.e., the petitioner “stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Memorandum 7 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Such a stipulation mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting PTAB and district-court decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and PTAB. Id.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After considering Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments, based on the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Kreitler and Suomela.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Second, Patent Owner improperly interprets the term “OVI” to require distance information. Patent Owner apparently reads the embedded term “vector” in isolation rather than as part of the term “object vector indicator.” See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray.”); Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (construing claim terms without considering the context in which those terms appear is not reasonable). Thus, even if “vector,” read in isolation, means something akin to a “Euclidean vector” that would arguably contain both a “magnitude” (which we understand Patent Owner to mean distance) and a direction, an “OVI” would not necessarily contain this exact information. Moreover, defining “OVI” to contain both distance and direction would render superfluous the language in claim 1, limitation 1d, that expressly requires the created OVI to “contain[] the distance . . . information.” See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (construing a claim in a way that renders a term superfluous is “a methodology that [our reviewing court] has denounced”).” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“1d. Pet. 6–14, 19–22. Petitioner argues that Kreitler “teaches [1c] via determining navigational information including distance and direction (distance and travel-related information) to an item of interest (MO)” (id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:36–41, 6:43–45, 7:5–31; Fig. 1)) and “discloses creating and displaying a special icon (OVI) indicating an off-map MO including the direction of the MO (travel-related information)” (Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:51–57)). Petitioner indicates that Kreitler does not expressly disclose OVI’s that contain distance-related information. Pet. 8. Petitioner contends that Suomela discloses displaying objects representing geographic points of interest that indicate direction and distance from the center of the map. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1006, Abstract 2:1–13, 4:34–56; Ex. obvious and advantageous to include distance indicators, as taught by Suomela, within Kreitler’s special icons to provide a user the distance from a position within the selected map to off-map POIs referenced by special icons.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). Based on the current record, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments, which we discuss below (see, supra, § II.E.4) we agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to include Suomela’s distance indicators within Kreitler’s special icons in order to advantegously provide distance information to a user. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66. We determine that Petitioner’s analysis and evidence sufficiently shows that the combination of Suomela and Kreitler discloses these steps.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,478,527 - BTC Corporation v. TG Biotech Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00998 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to strike Exhibit 1038 was granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that we should disregard Dr. Naumovski’s testimony because she may have taken a leave of absence from work for a couple of years. The record supports that Dr. Naumovski not only meets the requirements of the person of ordinary skill in the art, but also appears to have relevant knowledge with respect to Gynostemma pentaphylum (“GP”) saponins. See Ex. 2015 (Appendix A). related field, and at least two years of experience using techniques for extraction and characterization of plant-based materials.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 74). Because there are more than 400 species of plants that contain saponins, Patent Owner disagrees that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the structure and utility of saponins. Id. The level of skill in the art is a reference point for gauging what would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner, however, does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would meaningfully alter the Petition’s assertions of obviousness. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner, but there would be no difference in the outcome of this Decision if we were to apply the level of skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. C.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“during the full trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that applying the methods of Kim 460 to the G. pentaphyllum starting material of Razmovski necessarily results in the damulin levels as claimed. We agree with Dr. Naumovski’s explanation that the use of an impure damulin B standard containing a double peak renders the results as shown in Exhibit 1013 unreliable. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 141–143, 162–173; see Ex. 2007. Dr. Naumovski further explains that the use of an impure standard would require the application of a correction factor, but this correction factor would need to be reassessed as the purity of the standard decreases over time. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 166. As Dr. Naumovski explains that applying a correction factor to the linear regression would result in a shallower slope. Ex. 2015 ¶ 165 (citing 2006, 71:12–73:5; 99:2–9). “Reducing the calibration curve slope increases the amount of damulin B calculated from the experimental extracts.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 165. However, in the Experimental Report-1 the same correction factor for the damulin B standard was used to” slip op. at 41
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner requests construction of the terms “an effective amount for improving or treating the metabolic syndrome,” which is found in claims 11–13, as meaning “an amount that produces any measurable amount of improvement in the metabolic syndrome” (Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91)) and “[a] pharmaceutical composition for improving and treating a metabolic syndrome, comprising at least one of at least 0.7% damulin A and at least 0.5% damulin B . . . and a pharmacologically acceptable carrier or excipient,” which is found in claim 8, as meaning “a pharmaceutical composition that includes an extract with 0.7% and 0.5% of damulin A and damulin B[, respectively,] along with a carrier or excipient” (id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002, 64–65, 251–52, 280; Ex. 1001, 12:15–67, Table 2)). Patent Owner argues that “constructions are not necessary.” PO Resp. 11–12. We agree with Patent Owner and determine that it is not necessary for purposes of this Decision to construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Droge, 695 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed.Cir.1988)); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the expectation of success issue involves a showing of “a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed”) (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner relies on Kim 460 to show that heating ginseng, which contains the ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, results in a teaches that ginseng with the higher Rg3 and Rg5 content is 50-fold more potent in their vasodilation studies than the non-treated samples. Razmovski teaches that G. pentaphyllum contains over 100 saponins and eight of those saponins are the same as protoparaxadiol-type ginsenosides Rb1, Rc, Rb3, Rd, F2, Rg3, malonyl-Rb1, and malonyl-Rd that are found in P. ginseng. Ex. 1007, 4. Knowing that G. pentaphyllum also contains ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, we find Petitioner’s conclusion that heating a G. pentaphyllum extract that contains these ginsenosides would similarly increase the ginsenoside levels of Rg3 and Rg5 is a reasonable inference from the cited references. Based on the teachings in Kim 460, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been reasonable to expect that the same source material, although derived from a different plant, would behave similarly to heat treatment. See Pet. 24. Because G. pentaphyllum is a less expensive starting material, we also agree with Petitioner that there is sufficient motivation to substitute G. pentaphyllum for ginseng in the methods of Kim 460. slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,357,786 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,357,786 - PTAB · Nov 9, 2023 · IPR2023-00890 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–30 would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“same parties and invalidity challenges. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 11 at 5–6, 12-13 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”) (setting out six nonexclusive factors that the Board may consider in determining whether to deny institution because of a parallel district-court proceeding). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s June 21, 2022 Memorandum titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (“Memorandum”).8 The Memorandum sets forth, inter alia, that the Board will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a) when a petitioner submits a so-called Sotera stipulation, i.e., the petitioner “stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Memorandum 7 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Such a stipulation mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting PTAB and district-court decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and PTAB. Id.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, Preliminary Sur- Reply, and the present record, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we institute inter partes review of claims 1–30 of the ’297 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray.”); Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (construing claim terms without considering the context in which those terms appear is not reasonable). Thus, even if “vector,” read in isolation, means something akin to a “Euclidean vector” that would arguably contain both a “magnitude” (which we understand Patent Owner to mean distance) and a direction, an “OVI” would not necessarily contain this exact information. Moreover, defining “OVI” to contain both distance and direction would render superfluous the language in claim 1 that expressly requires the created OVI to “contain[] the distance . . . information.” See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (construing a claim in a way that renders a term superfluous is “a methodology that [our reviewing court] has denounced”). Construing “OVI” as a “Euclidian vector” that necessarily contains both distance and direction information would also be contrary to the ’297 patent’s written description. The written description indicates that the word “vector” is broader than “Euclidean vector,” in that it may simply be an “arrow” that is “pointing in the direction of the referenced remote location marker.” Ex. 1001, 3:43–45. The written description states that “[i]nformation displayed in the OVI . . . may include a vector (e.g. arrow) pointing in the direction of the referenced remote location marker, the distance and travel time to the remote location marker, etc.” (Ex. 1001, 3:43–46 (emphasis added)),12 indicating that such information is optional rather than always present.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering or equivalent engineering discipline, and approximately three years’ experience in telecommunications, navigation, or geolocation systems,” but “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 3–4. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s contention. See Prelim. Resp. 6 (stating that, “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art”). At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition for purposes of this Decision. We also look to the cited prior art references as evidence of the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,032,297 - Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Surgetech LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00738 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–6 because the Petition failed to identify its numerous, ambiguous obviousness grounds with the particularity required by § 312(a)(3).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted if the information presented by the petitioner in the petition, in view of the patent owner’s preliminary response and the preliminary record, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenDenied
“to the issue of thousands of asserted combinations of art. Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that Petitioner presents in the Petition “a single, omnibus claim chart that cites to numerous pages of prior art without any substantive explanation describing how those quotations are relevant or how they should be combined” and “exacerbates this confusion by citing to Dr. Regan’s seven-hundred seventy-eight page expert report, which, despite its length, is equally conclusory.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. Moreover, by citing “dozens of disparate passages from Jacob” in regard to a single limitation, along with “numerous citations to multiple prior art references,” the Petition fails to “identify how the prior art teachings should be combined in the grounds of a petition.” Id. at 18–19. In sum, rather than present its challenges with particularity, the Petition simply reproduces large excerpts from multiple references, while improperly incorporating by reference hundreds of pages from an expert declaration that frequently includes conclusory assertions. See generally Pet.; Ex. 1003. Accordingly, we find that the Petition falls short of the requirement that it present “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). In our view, the large number of ambiguous grounds is far out of proportion with the number of claims and the complexity of the issues involved. This excessiveness indicates that it would impose an undue burden for Patent Owner to respond to and for the Board to resolve all of the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts: POSITA would at minimum have a bachelor’s degree in software/computer/electrical engineering, computer science, or industrial engineering and management with at least two years’ experience in inventory and pricing management, including with respect to systems for dynamically managing inventory and pricing of transportation services or other types of inventory, or the equivalent. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant inventory and pricing management experience could substitute for formal education. EX1003, ¶17. POSITA are presumed knowledgeable of all relevant art, and would thus have been familiar with each reference cited herein and its full teachings. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner applies this same definition. Prelim. Resp. 10. For the purposes of this Decision, we accept 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 ’047 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 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim language “receiving . . . in real time.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not argue for any specific claim constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that, here, no construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. C. LEGAL STANDARDS CONCERNING INSTITUTION AND” slip op. at 11
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,475,047 - PTAB · Oct 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00739 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 10–12, 18, 19, 21, and 26–28 are obvious over the 2009 Press Release and Shams.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Release nor Shams expressly teaches the dosing regimen of “2 mg approximately every 4 weeks for the first 5 injections followed by 2 mg approximately once every 8 weeks or once every 2 months,” as recited in the independent claims. However, the question guiding our analysis is not one of anticipation, but of obviousness. Specifically, the question is whether 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 said subject matter pertains. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. We therefore turn to that analysis.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We conclude that, on the record as presently developed, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dosage regiment of the 2009 Press Release by adding a single dose at week twelve, in view of the teachings of Shams, to arrive at the claimed invention. We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered this addition of a single dose to be routine optimization to ensure, as Dr. Chaum relates, “to determine the optimal number of initial injections, before moving to eight-week dosing.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 151. Furthermore, and at this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the 2009 Press Release dosing protocol to include an additional dose at week twelve to ensure sufficient “drying” of the inner wall of the retina prior to increasing the interval of the doses two eight weeks/two months.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“claimed method. A reference teaches away when “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Patent Owner points to Shams’ Example 1, which it cites as representing Genentech’s PIER Phase IIIb study. See Prelim. Resp. 18. The PIER study, argues Patent Owner involved three monthly loading doses of a different VEGF antagonist (ranibizumab) followed by quarterly dosing, and, according to Patent Owner, was widely perceived as a failure. Id. Patent Owner contends that, based upon this single example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from following the teachings of Shams. Id. We disagree. As we have explained above, the disclosures of Shams encompass a larger variety of regimen options than merely that embodied in Example 1. Shams is directed expressly to “methods including administering … a number of first individual doses of a VEGF antagonist, followed by administering … a number of second individual doses of the antagonist, wherein the second individual doses are administered less frequently than the first individual doses.” Ex. 1010, 4–5; see also id., claim 1. Furthermore, Shams expressly teaches that “[t]he doses may be administered according to any time schedule which is appropriate for treatment of the disease or condition.” Id. at 22. We find that these broad teachings of Shams would, rather than discouraging a skilled artisan from following its teachings, encourage a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of first and second individual doses to maximize the therapeutic effect of the regimen of VEGF antagonist dosage administration. Shams places no express limits upon the number of first individual doses and, as we have explained above, the addition of a single additional dose at week twelve would fall well within the scope of Shams’ disclosures.” slip op. at 38
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“A method for treating….” Petitioner initially accepts, for the purposes of this Decision, that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, and agrees with the Board’s prior rejection, in the related IPR2021-00881 Final Written Decision, of Patent Owner’s position that the preamble requires a particular level of efficacy. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–91). Specifically, Petitioner notes that the Board found that administering a compound—the recited VEGF antagonist—“to [a] patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect on their angiogenic eye disorder” satisfies the “treating” portion of the preamble. Id. at 17 (quoting Ex. 1025, 19; and citing id. at 23; Ex. 1053, 9– 10; Ex. 1054). Patent Owner states that, for the purposes of this Decision only, it does not contest Petitioner’s proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 11. Therefore, for the same reasons we explained in the Final Written Decision in related IPR2022-00881 concerning a related patent having claims with language similar to the presently challenged claims, and for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a method for treating….” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,888,601 - Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Surgetech LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00735 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and failed to identify its grounds and supporting evidence with particularity.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Even when that standard is satisfied, however, the Board has discretion to deny institution.4” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Accordingly, we find that the Petition falls short of the requirement that it present “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). In our view, the large number of grounds is far out of proportion with the number of claims and the complexity of the issues involved. This excessiveness indicates that it would impose an undue burden for Patent Owner to respond to and for the Board to resolve all of the grounds asserted in the Petition. Moreover, in addition to the number of grounds asserted, Petitioner’s arguments in support of those grounds are unclear and impossible to discern. Petitioner does not separately discuss each individual ground, but instead lumps together the discussion of all grounds under a single heading. This grouping together of multiple grounds obscures the specific arguments advanced and the claims challenged in each individual ground. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not adequately explain these multiple-reference combinations, or why ordinarily skilled artisans would be motivated to combine them in the manner recited. In these circumstances, we determine that denial is appropriate because the Petition asserts voluminous and excessive grounds and fails to identify them with the requisite particularity. See Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC, 860 Fed. Appx. 708, 713 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“It is not the Board’s job to cobble together assertions from different sections of a petition or citations of various exhibits in order to infer every possible permutation of a petitioner’s arguments. Arguments in a petition must be made with particularity, not opacity”). We further determine that Petitioner fails to” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would at minimum have a bachelor’s degree in software/computer/electrical engineering, computer science, or industrial engineering and management including with respect to systems for dynamically managing inventory and pricing of transportation services or other types of inventory, or the equivalent.” Pet. 16. Petitioner also contends “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant inventory and pricing management experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill identified by Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill because, on the current record, it is consistent with the level of skill at the time of the claimed invention reflected by the ’598 patent and the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In sum, rather than present its challenges with particularity, the Petition simply reproduces large excerpts from multiple references while improperly incorporating by reference hundreds of pages from an expert declaration that frequently includes conclusory assertions. See, e.g., Ex 1003 ¶¶ 162, 188, 201, 226, 227, 240, 250, 264, 274, 282, 292, 302, 309, 318, 326, 332, 341, 363, 384, 387, 416, 428, 444, 456, 458, 476, 495, 504, 511, 521, 535, 633, 641 (stating in substantially similar terms that it “would have been routine to make such an implementation choice,” and “clear it results with a reasonable expectation of success”). Accordingly, we find that the Petition falls short of the requirement that it present “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). In our view, the large number of grounds is far out of proportion with the number of claims and the complexity of the issues involved. This excessiveness indicates that it would impose an undue burden for Patent Owner to respond to and for the Board to resolve all of the grounds asserted in the Petition. Moreover, in addition to the number of grounds asserted, Petitioner’s arguments in support of those grounds are unclear and impossible to discern. Petitioner does not separately discuss each individual ground, but instead lumps together the discussion of all grounds under a single heading. This grouping together of multiple grounds obscures the specific arguments advanced and the claims challenged in each individual ground. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not adequately explain these multiple-reference combinations, or why ordinarily skilled artisans would be motivated to combine them in the manner recited.” slip op. at 19
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,334,598 - Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Surgetech LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00737 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
Denied institution of IPR for claims 1–10 because the petition lacked particularity and failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s citations to Dr. Regan’s testimony, as well as to Jacob, Tamura, and Kono, fail to show a reasonable likelihood that the cited art satisfies that the steps recited in limitations 9(g) and 9(h) are performed “based on the query,” as required in limitation 9(f). Petitioner’s treatment of these limitations lacks sufficient substantive analysis. See Pet. 60–62.” slip op. at 17
- BurdenDenied
“1. Petitioner fails to clearly map how the claim limitations are mapped to the prior art, and “simply combines the references together in a single, omnibus chart, with no delineation between grounds.” Id. at 9. 2. The Petition fails to identify how the references are being combined. Id. at 14. 3. Petitioner’s motivations to combine are deficient, as Petitioner simply relies on boilerplate language without “address[ing] the combination of any specific teachings in the prior art, let alone explain why a POSITA would have understood such combinations.” Id. at 20. We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has a duty to identify “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also Playtika Ltd. V. NexRF Corp., IPR2021- 00952, Paper 14 (denying institution based on discretionary factors and lack of sufficient particularity). The importance of this requirement has been stressed by our reviewing court. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (“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.’”). Our Rules further require that the Petition must identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge” (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)) and that each petition must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent” (id. § 42.22(a)(2)). Our Practice Guide also instructs that “parties should avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (Nov. 14, 2019), at 39.2 The Petition falls short of these requirements. Rather than present its challenges in a concise and understandable” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“would at minimum have a bachelor’s degree in software/computer/electrical engineering, computer science, or industrial engineering and management with at least two years’ experience in inventory and pricing management, including with respect to systems for dynamically managing inventory and pricing of inventory, or the equivalent. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant inventory and pricing management experience could substitute for formal education. Pet. 10; see also Prelim. Resp. 7 (“This is the same level of skill agreed to by the parties in the litigation. Patent Owner applies this definition for purposes of this Preliminary Response.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the parties’ assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We find that their assessment is consistent with the ’999 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Rather, the parties do not propose competing constructions for any term. Compare Pet. 8–9, with Prelim. Resp. 42–45. For purposes of this Decision, we give the claims their plain and ordinary meaning, and we need not and do not expressly construe any 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)).” slip op. at 10
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,360,999 - Orthocision, Inc. v. Pain Teq, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 over all five asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, we conclude Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’129 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. Therefore, we grant institution of inter partes review. Our reasoning is discussed below. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties appear to largely agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience; the disagreement being on the precise type and focus of that experience. Each party cites only its witness’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan as support for its proposed definition. Neither party nor their witnesses cite any further supporting evidence for their proposed definitions.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Considering the parties’ proposed interpretations, we find Petitioner’s unsupported on the current record. The portion of the ’129 patent’s written description and Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “open tip” share little in common, for example, the Specification does not mention “an exposed tapered edge,” much less, suggest that the term “open tip” requires such. See Pet. 19. On the other hand, Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is more supported in view of the ’129 patent’s Specification and the plain language of the claim as some sort of “opening” seems necessary for an “open tip.” Prelim. Resp. 10. However, Patent Owner appears to read too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that an “open tip” requires all the structural features proposed by Patent Owner, i.e., the distal end of the abrading head has a leading edge that encloses the opening. “[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). The claim terms “open” and “tip” and their combination, “open tip,” are common words, used in their ordinary way, and are understandable on their face. And, what the ’129 patent’s written description makes clear is that the abrading head of the invention has a void (some empty space) and that the tip of the abrading head is open to that void. See Ex. 1001, 6:14–50. This would include, but is not limited to Patent Owner’s proposed tip where the leading edge entirely encloses the void. Thus, we interpret the claim term “open tip,” consistently with the” 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 appear to agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Prelim. Resp. 10–19. 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 component element of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,020,129
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.