- Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2026 · PGR2025-00027 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 8–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pet.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329 to institute a post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,920 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’920 patent”), claims 1–20. We issued an Institution Decision (Paper 12) granting the petitioned review. slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“thereby supporting our conclusion that the plain and ordinary meaning of “affordance” in claim 1 refers to an interactive user interface element.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Petitioner’s reliance on Low’s” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,966,920 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,966,920 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · PGR2025-00028 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds after finding claim 1 more likely than not unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Director may not authorize a post-grant review unless the information in the petition, if unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute a post-grant review as to claims 1–20 of the ’423 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art would have had “an educational background of, or practical experience equivalent to, a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems,” where “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’423 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’423 patent and cited 2 Petitioner states that it “takes no position on the proper priority date for the [c]hallenged [c]laims” and “uses the earliest possible priority date claimed, December 18, 2013,” for purposes of its asserted grounds. Pet. 14. prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–2:21 (stating that “[t]he present application relates to the field of payment processing systems” and describing the functionality of payment accepting units in the “Background” section).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Petitioner states that, “for purposes of [its] Petition, the Board need not construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes, and the claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner agrees that “[n]o constructions are necessary” to decide the issues disputed by the parties. Prelim. Resp. 2–3. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute a post-grant review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelNot reached
“For the reasons explained below, we conclude, on the merits and based on the current record, that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable as claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Pet. 77–84. Accordingly, we need not determine at this time whether collateral estoppel applies based on the Board’s decision in PGR2021-00093. The parties, however, should address the issue in their papers during trial, with citations to relevant authority. In particular, the parties are encouraged to address (1) how the collateral estoppel requirement that the issue be “identical to one decided in the first action” applies in the context of an asserted ground under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and (2) the parties’ apparent disagreement as to whether collateral estoppel may be applied in such circumstances on a “limitation-by-limitation basis.” See Pet. 72, 75 (quoting Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022)); Prelim. Resp. 20–21; see also Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., – F.4th –, No. 2023-1359, 2025 WL 2178321, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (Dyk, J., dissenting) (“In subsequent Board proceedings, it is well established that collateral estoppel applies to claims adjudicated by the Board to be unpatentable and also to ‘related claims that present identical issues of patentability,’ i.e., patentably indistinct claims. . . . ‘It is well established that patent claims need not be identical for collateral estoppel to apply.’” (citing MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Google, 54 F.4th at 1381)).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,972,423 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · PGR2025-00027 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding claim 1 more likely than not ineligible under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A. Legal Standards — Petitioner’s Burden In a post-grant review, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), which is identical to 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3) in requiring petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”). This 2 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’920 patent “would have had an educational background of, or practical experience equivalent to, a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26. Further: “Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. generally. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’920 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’920 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–2:21 (stating “[t]he present application relates to the field of payment processing systems” and describing the functionality of payment accepting units in the “BACKGROUND” section).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues “the Board need not construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner argues: “No constructions are necessary to deny institution because denial is warranted for numerous reasons that do not depend on claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 3. However, as discussed below, several of Patent Owner’s arguments seeking to distinguish claim 1 from Low rely on underlying claim construction positions. Except as discussed below in connection with those arguments, we determine no explicit construction is needed to resolve the parties’ controversy as to whether institution should be granted here. See 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 12
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionInstituted
“We determine Petitioner has made a sufficient showing for Step 2A, Prong 1 based on the current record. Petitioner addresses each of limitations [1.2]–[1.14] and explains how they support Petitioner’s contention that the claim, as a whole, is directed to the alleged abstract idea. See Pet. 80–84. For example, Petitioner notes specifically how limitation [1.2], reciting “identifying one or more payment accepting units,” pertains to identifying a merchant, and how limitations [1.6], [1.7], and [1.9] recite user interaction using the mobile device that enables the completion of a purchase. See id. Petitioner thus shows sufficiently how claim 1, by virtue of the limitations reproduced above,5 recites the concept of “identifying a merchant and enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant.” Id. at 80.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,966,920 - PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · PGR2025-00016 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 4–14 on all asserted grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute a post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 362–63, 369–70 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and “notes that it substantially tracks” Patent Owner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 19–20; see also id. at 20 n.7 (defining one of ordinary skill in the art as having “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical or Agricultural Engineering and two years of experience in the design of machines, or have had equivalent knowledge and experience”). Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. Patent Owner’s proposal is the same, except for use of the term “machines” instead of “vehicles.” Furthermore, Patent Owner does not argue at this stage of the proceeding that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would understand either the challenged patent or the prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“In contrast, we view the record at this stage as supporting an understanding of the “frame” in “mainframe” as a supporting structure. Patent Owner provides a dictionary defining “frame” as a “rigid supporting structure” (Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2009 at 3)), and Petitioner proposes “a supporting structure” based on that definition (see Pet. Reply CC Br. 3 (mistakenly citing Ex. 2007 rather than Ex. 2009)). Further, this dictionary definition does not contradict the “mainframe” described in the Specification or any other intrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Fig. 4, 2:44–45 (“FIG. 4 is a perspective view of a mainframe of a compact tool carrier.”); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322–23 (stating that judges may “rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents”).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Patent Owner’s argument does not identify a deficiency in the Petition, however, because we did not adopt any part of Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “mainframe,” including the phrase “the body,” which serves as the starting point of Patent Owner’s argument here. See § II.C.3. Instead, we preliminarily construe “mainframe” under its plain and ordinary meaning as a primary supporting structure. Id. Limitation 4.2 makes clear that the “mainframe” supports the “loader.” The current record supports that at least the structures shaded in green and blue in the annotated version of Figure 1 of KR996 immediately above are the primary supporting structure for the loader (i.e., a “mainframe”)—i.e., when in operation, those structures provide the primary “weight-bearing frame supporting the loader unit 40” in KR996. Pet. 24 (“KR996’s mainframe includes the frame components of KR996 vehicle for supporting the attached loader unit 40 by providing structural or weight-bearing support when the vehicle is in operation.” (citing Velinsky Decl. ¶¶ 65–67)); Pet. 26–27 (stating that the “mainframe” are the “portions [that] are part of a frame or body making up the KR996 vehicle when in operation providing structural and weight-bearing support for the loader unit 40, in addition to support for other features such as the control station and drive mechanism” (citing Velinsky Decl. ¶ 67)); see, e.g., Ex. 1005, Figs. 7–9 (showing the vehicle of KR996 in operation). The testimony of Dr. Velinsky supports these positions, explaining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the green and blue structures above as part of a “mainframe.” See Velinsky Decl. ¶¶ 66– 67, cited at Pet. 24–27. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented declaration testimony—but rather only attorney argument— supporting that one of ordinary skill in the art would have identified fixture 41 in KR996 as something other than a “mainframe.” See Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“‘[A]ttorney argument is not evidence’ and cannot rebut other admitted evidence.” (quoting Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017))). On the current record, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that KR996 discloses or suggests the mainframe limitations.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 12,098,063 - PTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00887 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 7–10, 12, 13, and 15–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 12 is anticipated by LithoRec.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with 1 In the Introduction and section headings of the Petition, Petitioner identifies claims 1–3, 7–9, 12, 13, and 15–19 as the challenged claims. Pet. i–ii. In the substantive content of the Petition, however, Petitioner includes claim 10 as a challenged claim as well. Id. at 34–35. respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and we institute inter partes review on all of the challenged claims based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, materials science, chemical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 to 3 years of academic or industry [experience] in the recycling or processing of lithiumion batteries.” Pet. 14. On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as, on the present record, it appears consistent with the ’097 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “[n]o claim construction is needed,” because “[t]he claims are unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 15. That said, Petitioner directs us to alleged definitions of several terms in the specification or prosecution history of the ’097 patent. Id. at 15–17. Patent Owner argues that “[c]laim construction is not required to deny the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 26. Based on the present record, we agree with both parties that we need not expressly construe any claim terms at this time.6 See 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 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“In order to anticipate a claimed invention, a prior art reference must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention without undue experimentation.” Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In addition, “[a]n anticipatory reference need only enable subject matter that falls within the scope of the claims at issue, nothing more.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,050,097 - Ravin Crossbows, LLC v. MCP IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00524 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–5 and 8–19 on the sole obviousness ground over Darlington and Islas.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that, under 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Office may not institute review of fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Petitioner presents one ground, namely that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious in view of Darlington and Islas. Pet. 5. Patent Owner contends that the Petition should be denied in its entirety. For the reasons expressed below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing that at least one claim is unpatentable. In accordance with the SAS decision and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’831 patent on the sole ground proffered by Petitioner. B. Related Proceedings” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“After reviewing Petitioner’s evidence, which is not disputed by Patent Owner, we find that the combination of Darlington and Islas sufficiently teaches the subject matter of limitations 1(e) and 1(f).” slip op. at 37
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person having ordinary skill in the art on the priority date of the ’831 patent: would have had (i) a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a similar technical field; (ii) a working knowledge of and/or experience with projectile weapon (e.g., archery bow) operation and performance; and (iii) two to four years of experience with designing and manufacturing of consumer products. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 25–28). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s uncontested definition because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’831 patent and the prior art. C. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“2. Analysis The Federal Circuit instructs that: “[t]o demonstrate an actual reduction to practice, the applicant must have: (1) constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim and (2) determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose.” Steed, 802 F.3d at 1318. “That is, to reduce any particular claim to practice, the applicant must have constructed an operational embodiment within the scope of that claim.” Nintendo of America Inc. v. iLife Technologies, Inc., 717 Fed. Appx. 996 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (addressing Steed’s above, two-prong standard). The Board may find an actual reduction to practice based on, for example, “testimony of the inventors, corroborating witnesses, and corroborating documentary evidence” (id. at 1002) if “[t]his evidence, taken together, is sufficient for a reasonable mind to conclude that the prototype created by the inventors . . . was within the scope of claims . . . and would work for its intended purpose” (id. at 1003). But if “[t]he prototype has not been shown to meet all the limitations of the[] claims, . . . the record thus lacks evidence sufficient to support the . . . conclusion [of an actual reduction to practice].” Id. at 1004 (citing Steed, 802 F.3d at 1318). “[A]n inventor’s testimony alone is insufficient to establish an earlier reduction to practice. Medichem[, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.], 437 F.3d [1157,] 1169–71.” “In the final analysis, each corroboration case must be decided on its own facts with a view to deciding whether the evidence as a whole is persuasive.” Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Berges v. Gottstein, 618 F.2d 771, 776 (C.C.P.A. 1980)).” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,909,831 - Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00062 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–3, 5–8, 10, and 13–15 over Ferro and Lowenthal; claim 9 with Evans; and claims 4, 11, and 12 with Boll.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner’s challenges are based on obviousness. A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in the record, objective evidence of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyOther
“2. Reduction to Practice “The diligence requirement implements the principle that, to antedate a reference,” an inventor “must not only have conceived the invention before the reference date, but must have reasonably continued activity to reduce the invention to practice.” ATI Techs. ULC v. Iancu, 920 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “A patent owner need not prove the inventor continuously exercised reasonable diligence throughout the critical period; it must show 1009 (emphasis by the court). An inventor’s testimony does not alone suffice to prove diligence. Id. at 1007. A “variety of activities” may corroborate an inventor’s testimony about diligence, and any corroborating evidence is considered “as a whole.” Id. at 1007–08.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. MacCarley, testifies that one skilled in the art during the relevant timeframe “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics (or an equivalent field) and at least two years of work experience involving automotive systems, including vehicle information systems, vehicle sensors, and vehicle controllers,” but “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 26). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 14 (“Because [the proposed level of ordinary skill] does not affect the ultimate analysis, Patent Owner takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner because it is consistent with the prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“According to Petitioner, “[n]o terms here require construction and so all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 10–11. Similarly, “Patent Owner submits that the Board need not expressly construe any claim term.” PO Resp. 18. We do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See 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 7
Patent outcomesUS 9,853,488 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,853,488 - Sram, LLC v. Fox Factory, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01302 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–8 unpatentable under any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years’ experience in vehicle suspension technology, or a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering with a concentration in design of vehicle suspension technology and/or shock absorbers.” Pet. 2, n.1 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 33; Ex. 1103 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally, Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that claim construction is not necessary. Pet.7. Nonetheless, Petitioner contends that because of prosecution history disclaimer, the claim term “air bleed assembly” should be construed to be “located between the lower leg seal and the upper bushing.” Id. Patent Owner contends that this claim term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 13. In particular, Petitioner argues that “[t]he claim language itself makes it clear that the ‘air bleed assembly’ is located on the lower fork between the lower leg seal and a resting level of the oil bath in the lower fork.” Id. (citing Ex. 1101, 4:56– 5:4). We note that Petitioner acknowledges that “claim construction is not necessary because the claims of the ‘331 patent are invalid in view of the prior art regardless of whether Fox’s prosecution history disclaimer on the position of the “air bleed assembly” is included in the claim construction.” Pet. 7. Based on our review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, no” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Here, we understand Kashima to teach that when setscrew 6 is opened to release air in the clearance, oil is also released through the same opening. Ex. 1105 ¶ 4. In other words, the distance between setscrew 6 and the oil bath lubrication does not prevent the leakage of oil from the lower tube. Rather, setscrew 6 must be closed to prevent the oil from leaking and continuing to leak from the inside of outer tube 1. Indeed, Petitioner acknowledges the same. Petitioner asserts that “most if not all of the oil bath lubrication remains within the lower fork 1 because the valve is near the top of the lower fork 1 and can be closed once any oil begins to leak.” Pet. 26– 27 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶ 4). Here, Petitioner acknowledges that it is the closing of the setscrew that stops the oil leakage. However, claim 1 requires that the fluid passage and manually operable valve “are located at a distance from an oil bath lubrication within said lower fork, such that when said manually operable valve is in said second position, most, if not all of said oil bath lubrication remains within said lower fork[.]” Ex. 1001, 5:2–7 (emphases added).” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,739,331 - CSC Serviceworks, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2023-01186 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Low.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“interest. Prelim. Reply 1–7. And, argues that “there is no reason for the Board to address PayRange’s RPI argument at institution because no time-bar or estoppel issue exists.” Id. at 2–3 (“To date, PayRange has not asserted the ‘045 patent against Kiosoft or TechTrex, and thus no time bar ever triggered under § 315(b) based on separate litigation between PayRange and Kiosoft/TechTrex.”). iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (“SharkNinja”) held that it best serves the Office’s interests in cost and efficiency to not resolve an RPI issue when “it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315” in that proceeding. SharkNinja, Paper 11; see also Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 76 at (USPTO Director May 22, 2023) (non-precedential). We do not address whether KioSoft and TechTrex are unnamed real-parties-in-interest because, even if they were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentDenied
“TPG, 40. The block quotation image on page 73 of the Petition contains approximately 105 words. On this record, whether or not Petitioner accounts for these words in its certification is unclear. In any event, Patent Owner does not allege that it has suffered any undue prejudice from the extra 102 words. Nor does Patent Owner indicate that it promptly raised the issue to allow for Petitioner to take reasonable steps to remedy the issue. Under the circumstances in this case, we are not persuaded the Petitioner is abusing the process by including excessive words in the image so as to warrant not considering the Petition. During trial, all future papers must comply with applicable word- count limits and the parties must avoid images of block quotations, so that the words of the quotation are included in word-count limits.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not provide a description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’045 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Neither party provides an explicit construction of any claim terms. Petitioner asserts that “the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner asserts that “no constructions are necessary to deny institution because the petition facially fails to show that the references satisfy the plain language of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 6. Except to the extent as discussed in our patentability analysis below, we do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision. See 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,” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,856,045 - PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01161 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–21 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over several asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been anticipated or obvious over the prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, we do not discern a material difference between the parties’ respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. For example, neither party provides argument that any position in their papers depends on any distinction between their definitions. However, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s level of skill as most closely aligning with the problems and solutions in the ’425 patent and prior art of record. For example, contrary to Patent Owner’s contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner’s definition allows for “those most familiar with manure agitation equipment – livestock farmers and the manure application business” through the definition’s statement that “[a] POSA would have had a working knowledge of fluid pumps and livestock manure” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. When a claim term lacks the word “means,” the presumption can be overcome and § 112, para. 6 will apply 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.” Williamson v Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir 2015) (internal citations omitted).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther
“liquid manure, it also acknowledges that liquid manure will contain some solid content. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1066, 89). Patent Owner argues that “[t]he intrinsic evidence [(summarized above)] makes clear that the claim term ‘liquid manure’ means “animal manure contained in a farm lagoon, which includes suspended solids.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 82). Thus, the parties agree that liquid manure includes solids. Patent Owner does not provide argument at this stage as to what specific structure is required to pump a liquid which includes suspended solids. At this stage, and given that both parties agree that liquid manure includes suspended solids, we construe these terms only to the extent that pumping liquid manure requires a pump with a structure that is capable of pumping liquid with suspended solids. We encourage the parties to further develop this argument (such as to the extent it would differentiate the prior art) and their positions at trial. No other terms require express construction at this stage. See 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 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,358,425
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.