• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2026 · PGR2025-00013 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 and 18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted prior art did not establish the claimed quick-connect system during reciprocation, and Clark was not analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id.” slip op. at 8

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

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 1[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick-connect system is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that many different types of connectors, whether they require alignment or not, were known. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick-connect system, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick-connect system configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick-connect system” recited in independent claims 1 and 18.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes: Quick-connect system 600 includes a piston 602 that has a hollow-end bore 608 for receiving the shaft 621 of a massaging head 620. Located within the bore 608 of piston 602 is a cylindrical seat 604. Cylindrical seat 604 retains a magnet 606. Magnet 606 is illustrated with its north pole located flush with the seat and facing toward the opening in bore 608. Massaging head 620 includes a shaft 621 having a cylindrical pocket 622 at the distal end. Located within the cylindrical pocket 622 is a magnet 624. Magnet 624 is positioned so that its south pole is located at the distal end of shaft 621. Accordingly, when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place. Ex. 1001, 6:57–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the bore and the seat located within the bore are “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the bore and the seat within the bore are “substantially cylindrical” when the massaging head and magnet are respectively received therein so that the magnet in the seat and the magnet in the pocket of the massaging head can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the bore and the seat within the bore were “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in claims 13–16 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shapes of the bore and the structure within the bore. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of claims 13–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,938,082 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,938,082
• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2026 · PGR2024-00053 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 34–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 unpatentable under § 112(a), § 112(b), or any asserted § 103 ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ proffered definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art differ in the details of the experience a POSITA would possess. Petitioner’s definition requires experience with rotating or reciprocating mechanisms, whereas Patent Owner’s definition requires experience with devices for human use and interaction. These differences, however, do not affect our analysis of the issues in this case. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 34[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick release connector is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that a POSITA would be able to recognize a quick release connector for a particular application. According to Dr. Pratt, A person of ordinary skill in the art would consider a number of factors, depending on the context and specific application of the connector, to determine whether a connector provides a “quick release.” Such factors could include whether the connector is designed to manually and easily connect and disconnect two objects, and whether tools are necessary to do so. Other factors to be considered may be based on the specific application or operating environment. Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick release connector, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick release connector configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick release connector . . . configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates a predetermined stroke length at the first speed” recited in claim element 34[e]. 4. Conclusion for Written Description For the reasons set forth above in sections II.C.1–3, Petitioner has not persuaded us that any aspect of claim element 34[e] lacks written description support. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as any of claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes that quick-connect system 600 includes two magnets with opposite poles facing each other: magnet 606 in the distal end of piston 602 and magnet 624 located in cylindrical pocket 622 of massaging head 620. Ex. 1001, 6:57–67, Figs. 6, 6A. The Specification further describes that “when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place.” Id. at 6:67–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the pocket is “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the pocket is “substantially cylindrical” when the pocket receives a magnet therein so that the magnets can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the pocket was “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in independent claim 34 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shape of the pocket. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,857,482 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,857,482
• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 2, 2025 · PGR2025-00013 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–16 and 18, finding a sufficient preliminary showing of unpatentability for claims 1–4, 7, 9–11, 13, and 18 under the Mabuchi-based grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6, 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one of claims 1–16 and 18, which are the challenged claims of the ’082 patent that remain after Patent Owner’s disclaimer.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aOther

    “II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL In view of the Acting Director’s memo bifurcating discretionary considerations and merits considerations,8 we note that Patent Owner had the opportunity to file a brief requesting discretionary denial of institution but did not file such a brief. Paper 7, 1. Accordingly, any discretionary issues were mooted, and the case was referred to this Board panel to consider the merits and other non-discretionary considerations. Id. at 1–2.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a related field, and two-to-three years of experience in the research, design, development, or testing of rotating or reciprocating mechanisms, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). Patent Owner contends that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the effective filing date of the Challenged Claims would have a working knowledge of product development and would likely have a degree in engineering and/or industrial design and/or at 5 Harris et al., US 6,432,072 B1, issued Aug. 13, 2002. Ex. 1006. 6 Pivaroff, US 6,682,496 B1, issued Jan. 27, 2004. Ex. 1007. 7 Clark, US 3,007,504, issued Nov. 7, 1961. Ex. 1014. 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ InterimProcesses-PTABWorkloadMgmt-20250326.pdf. least three to five years of experience in conceiving, designing, engineering, and/or modifying such products and devices. Prelim. Resp. 16. While we appreciate that the parties differ slightly on the details of experience that an ordinary artisan would possess, we do not find a difference that affects our Decision. For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The parties may provide briefing at trial, if appropriate, to explain why adoption of one definition over the other changes the remaining analysis.” slip op. at 6

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

    “IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In a post-grant review, we interpret a 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).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under this standard, we construe 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.” Id. Neither party identifies any term that requires construction. Pet. 13‒ 15; Prelim. Resp. 16‒17. Accordingly, we need not construe any term at the present time.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,938,082
• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · PGR2024-00053 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 34–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over the asserted Mabuchi-based grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “post-grant review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “likely occur very close in time to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision. . . . the claim construction hearing will occur on April 16, 2025” Prelim. Resp. 63. Neither party identifies a date for trial in the Parallel Litigation. On review of the Pacer record, it appears that the claim construction hearing was continued to April 23, 2025. There is no indication that the trial will be completed prior to a PTAB Final Written Decision, much less a court decision. Accordingly, this factor weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one of claims 34–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 of the ’482 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a related field, and two-to-three years of experience in the research, design, development, or testing of rotating or reciprocating mechanisms, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). Patent Owner contends that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention would have a working knowledge of product development, and would likely have a degree in engineering and/or industrial design, and/or at least three to five years of experience in conceiving, designing, engineering, and/or modifying such products and devices.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,857,482
• Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00608 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–14, 17–19, and 21 as obvious over Teigen and Grey; claims 15–16 over Teigen, Grey, and Yang; and claim 20 over Teigen, Grey, and Matteo.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens through which . . . the Board views the prior art and claimed invention” to prevent hindsight bias. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “as adopted by the Board in the Institution Decision. The ’253 patent explicitly defines this term, stating: The term “forward flow” is used herein to define an amount of liquid in the lumen 662 that exits the distal end 664 in a distal direction. Forward flow is defined as greater than 6 microliters of fluid (approximately 1 mm of catheter length of ID 0.071″=5.7 μL). Ex. 1001, 38:18–23 (emphasis added). Moreover, in discussing problems with the prior art systems, the ’253 patent states that “[w]hen positive pressure exists at the distal end of the lumen, liquid from inside the lumen exits out from the distal end of the catheter in a distal direction. This is referred to as forward flow.” Id. at 3:8–11. In the ’253 patent, the patentee acted as its own lexicographer as evidenced by usage of language such as “is used herein to define,” “is defined,” and “is referred to as,” to discuss “forward flow.” We find that the definition of “forward flow” in the ’253 patent specification would provide a person of ordinary skill with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” as to the meaning of the term. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; see also Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 13–14. Thus, we construe the term, “forward flow,” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.” We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that our construction imports limitations from a single embodiment into the claims. As explained above, the ’253 patent clearly defines the term “forward flow” and this definition is not limited to a single embodiment. In fact, the ’253 patent indicates that, while “[f]orward flow is defined as greater than 6 microliters of fluid . . . [l]ess forward flow is also included in this definition.” Ex. 1001, 38:21–24. The ’253 patent specifies that “the amount of forward flow can be restricted to no greater than 2 microliters or, in a particularly beneficial embodiment, forward flow is approximately zero microliters.” Id. at 38:24– 29. This language indicates that our construction encompasses multiple embodiments from the ’253 patent. We also disagree with Patent’s Owner’s proposed construction of “forward flow” because it is not supported by the ’253 patent specification. Patent Owner contends that “there is ‘no forward flow’ until the full extent of the distal portion” exits the distal end and thus forward flow is prevented when only less than “the full extent of the distal portion” exits the distal end. PO Resp. 9 (emphasis omitted). To adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we would have to essentially ignore the ’253 patent’s express definition of this term. Further, there is no support in the ’253 patent specification for “full extent” or “fully exiting.” We also agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s construction effectively eliminates the concept of preventing forward flow because, as Patent Owner acknowledges, it could allow, for example, 20 milliliters of fluid to exit the catheter, which could displace the thrombus into the patient’s vasculature, a problem that the ’253 patent seeks to avoid. See PO Resp. 10–12 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 48–51); Pet. Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 14–15).” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “As discussed above, we construe “forward flow” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.” Thus, for the ’011 provisional to provide support for this limitation, the provisional must demonstrate that the inventors had possession of preventing greater than 6 microliters of fluid out of the distal end of the catheter. While Patent Owner points to disclosures from the ’011 provisional application that describe the desire to have “a minimal amount of momentum transfer from the fluid column to the stuck clot to unstick the clot sufficiently” and “[t]he exiting movement of fluid [being] limited to a specific volume and/or pressure and is automatically and precisely controlled” to prevent the “possibility of overshooting,” these disclosures would not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of a device that limited forward flow to no greater than 6 microliters of fluid. PO Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15, 16, 138). Patent Owner also contends that the ’011 provisional application provides “multiple examples of liquid flow exiting the distal end of the catheter such that no forward flow occurs, such as 1 microliter or 0.5 mm of column shift.” PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). However, the disclosure cited by Patent Owner provides ranges of liquid flow of “approximately 0.001 ml to approximately 1.0 ml, in particular, approximately 0.1 ml to approximately 0.5 ml” and exemplary length of shift distances of “approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 30 mm, in particular, approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 15 mm.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. There is nothing in the ’011 provisional application that specifically directs the person of ordinary skill to the portions of these ranges that fall within the ’253 patent’s definition of “forward flow” (i.e., no greater than 6 microliters of fluid). In fact, the majority of the cited ranges are greater than 6 microliters, going all the way up to 1,000 microliters, such that there would be forward flow in these examples. See Ex. 1034 ¶ 25; Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326–27 (“[O]ne cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention. In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the blaze marks directing the skilled artisan to that tree must be in the originally filed disclosure.”); Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, we note that the ’253 patent differentiates between embodiments that allow forward flow and embodiments in which no forward flow occurs. See Ex. 1001, 32:58–60, 37:19–22; Pet. Reply 10–11. For example, the ’253 patent describes an embodiment in which the “momentum causes a small amount of fluid to move through the distal portion of the catheter [] and create a small distal movement of the clot.” Ex. 1001, 32:47– 51. This same embodiment is disclosed in the ’011 provisional application. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 126 with Ex. 1001, 32:16–60. The ’253 patent describes this disclosure as an “exemplary embodiment” in which the “flow of fluid forward . . . is intentional, which is in contrast to other exemplary embodiments herein where substantially no forward flow occurs.” Ex. 1001, 32:57–60; see also, id. at 37:19–22 (“Turning now to embodiments . . . without the forward flow”).8 The ’011 provisional application does not include the subsequent embodiments from the ’253 patent that are described as being “without the forward flow.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 68; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 22–23. This further demonstrates that the ’011 provisional application does not support the limitation of “prevent[ing] forward flow.” We also note that the ’011 provisional application does not contain adequate support for the limitation of “substantially prevent[ing] forward flow” even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. While the ’011 provisional discloses “controlling the distal movement of the fluid column” (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15, 16), this does not support Patent Owner’s assertion that the ’011 provisional teaches that “the distal portion of the fluid column is substantially prevented from fully exiting the distal end.” PO Resp. 35–36. For example, as discussed above, the ’011 provisional application discloses permitting distal flow of up to 1,000 microliters, which would likely exceed the amount that could be characterized as the full distal portion. Ex. 1003 ¶ 91; Ex. 1034 ¶ 25. Thus, we find that the ’011 provisional application does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventors] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 8 Patent Owner contends that the statement in the ’253 patent regarding the “exemplary embodiment” of “forward flow” is referring to an embodiment in which the volume of the liquid drawn out from the lumen of the catheter is “approximately 0.2 ml.” PO Resp. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:35–36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 126; Ex. 2014 ¶ 99). Even if this is correct, the ’011 provisional application does not include the embodiments that the ’253 patent specifically characterizes as being “without the forward flow.” Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 1005 ¶ 68; Ex. 1034 ¶ 22–25.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the above, we determine that, for prior-art determinations under AIA § 102, “there is no need to evaluate whether any claim of [a reference] patent document is actually entitled to priority or benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120.” MPEP § 2154.01(b) (emphasis added). Rather, under the AIA, a reference patent document need only meet the “ministerial requirements” of §§ 119 and 120, and the provisional or other earlier application(s) to which the reference patent document claims a right of priority must “describe[] the subject matter” relied upon in the reference patent document as prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2). Patent Owner has not contested that Teigen meets the procedural requirements for claiming priority to the ’712 patent or the ’095 PCT application. Teigen also appears to meet the ministerial requirements for claiming priority to the provisional applications because it properly claims the benefit of these applications, the ’095 PCT application was filed co-pending with the provisional applications, and the applications share common inventors. Ex. 1007, codes (22), (60), (63), (72); Ex.1008, 2; Ex. 1009, 2; Ex. 2005, codes (22), (30), (72). Patent Owner does not dispute that Teigen meets the “ministerial requirements” of § 119. Because we find that the Dynamic Drinkware analysis does not apply here, we agree with Petitioner and Patent Owner, that we need not reach the issue of whether a claim from Teigen is supported by either Teigen provisional application. PO Sur-Reply 8; Pet. Reply 12–13.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,722,253 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,722,253
• Hope Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Oregon Health & Science UniversityOther
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00123 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled original claim 1 and denied substitute claim 2 for lack of written-description support; it did not reach the obviousness or enablement grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill is inappropriate because it “requires qualifications that exclude even the sole inventor of the ’190 Patent, Dr. Edward Neuwelt.” MTA Opp. 1. According to Petitioner, Dr. Neuwelt is “a neurosurgeon,” not a pediatric oncologist, and lacks the requisite “at least 2 years” experience in platinum-based therapies. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 18; Ex. 1038, 98:9–17, 100:15–101, 4). We agree with Petitioner. It is well settled that inventors are typically persons skilled in the field of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner presents persuasive evidence to show that under Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill, Dr. Neuwelt, the sole inventor, would not qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan, because he is not a pediatric oncologist, even though he is considered “one of the world leading experts on this compound [STS] and otoprotection” and “an expert in the area of [STS] as a . . . drug to use in children with medulloblastoma.” Ex. 1038, 98:9–17, 99:17–18, 101:18–102:13.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Paragraph 102 of Dr. Rassekh’s Declaration, however, does not support Patent Owner’s assertion. Instead, Dr. Rassekh testifies that [t]he stratum of previous craniospinal radiation therapy contained 8 participants: 2 of the 4 (50%) participants receiving STS had hearing loss compared to 4 of the 4 (100%) participants not receiving STS, and none of the hearing loss assessments were changed at the 1 year follow up period. (Ex. 1001 at 20: 28-32, 47-50.) Ex. 2024 ¶ 102. Dr. Rassekh offers no opinion on how many osteosarcoma patients with prior cranial irradiation and how many medulloblastoma patients with prior cranial irradiation had hearing loss.” slip op. at 20

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “In sum, we find the disclosures of the ’243 application that Patent Owner relies on do not provide sufficient written-description support for the ototoxicity efficacy limitation.” slip op. at 21

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

    “F. Petitioner’s Asserted Unpatentability Grounds In light of our determination above that Patent Owner has not shown sufficient written-description support for proposed substitute claim 2 in the ’243 application, we do not reach the grounds of unpatentability set forth in Petitioner’s Opposition. See Revised MTA Opp. 17–25 (alleging non-enablement and obviousness).” slip op. at 26

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,596,190
• Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01466 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under §103: claims 1–12, 15, 16, and 18 over Teigen and Grey; claims 13–14 over Teigen, Grey, and Yang; claim 17 over Teigen, Grey, and Matteo.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on our consideration of the full record, we find that, overall, Patent Owner’s definition is more specifically tailored to the claimed subject matter of the ’883 patent. We also find that, a person with a biomedical engineering degree could have the required background in fluid mechanics. See Ex. 1031, 45:21–46:7. Therefore, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a B.S. in mechanical or biomedical engineering with at least three years of experience in designing systems for minimally invasive intravascular procedures for treating occluded vessels or the equivalent and in consultation with medical professionals such as interventional neurosurgeons. Although we agree with, and have primarily adopted Patent Owner’s definition for an ordinarily skilled artisan in this proceeding, our analysis and conclusions herein would not change even under Petitioner’s definition. The parties also do not indicate that the outcome would differ based on the definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 6; Pet. Reply 1.” slip op. at 10

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

    “as adopted by the Board in the Institution Decision. The ’883 patent explicitly defines this term, stating: The term “forward flow” is used herein to define an amount of liquid in the lumen 662 that exits the distal end 664 in a distal direction. Forward flow is defined as greater than 6 microliters of fluid (approximately 1 mm of catheter length of ID 0.071″=5.7 μL). Ex. 1001, 36:18–23 (emphasis added). Moreover, in discussing problems with the prior art systems, the ’883 patent states that “[w]hen positive pressure exists at the distal end of the lumen, liquid from inside the lumen exits out from the distal end of the catheter in a distal direction. This is referred to as forward flow.” Id. at 2:62–65. In the ’883 patent, the patentee acted as its own lexicographer as evidenced by usage of language such as “is used herein to define,” “is defined,” and “is referred to as,” to discuss “forward flow.” We find that the definition of “forward flow” in the ’883 patent specification would provide a person of ordinary skill with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” as to the meaning of the term. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; see also Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 13–14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53, 62. Thus, we construe the term, “forward flow,” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.”” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “As discussed above, we construed “forward flow” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.” Thus, for the ’011 provisional to provide support for this limitation, the provisional must demonstrate that the inventors had possession of preventing greater than 6 microliters of fluid out of the distal end of the catheter. While Patent Owner points to disclosure from the ’011 provisional application which describes “a minimal amount of momentum transfer from the fluid column to the stuck clot to unstick the clot sufficiently” and “[t]he exiting movement of fluid [being] limited to a specific volume and/or pressure and is automatically and precisely controlled” to prevent the “possibility of overshooting,” it would not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of a device that limited forward flow to no greater than 6 microliters of fluid. PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16, 138). Patent Owner also contends that the ’011 provisional application provides “multiple examples of liquid flow exiting the distal end of the catheter such that no forward flow occurs, such as 1 microliter or 0.5 mm of column shift.” PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). However, the disclosure cited by Patent Owner provides ranges of liquid flow of “approximately 0.001 ml to approximately 1.0 ml, in particular, approximately 0.1 ml to approximately 0.5 ml” and exemplary length of shift distances of “approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 30 mm, in particular, approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 15 mm.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. There is nothing in the disclosure of the ’011 provisional application that specifically directs the person of ordinary skill to the portions of these ranges which fall within the ’883 patent’s definition of no “forward flow” (i.e., no greater than 6 microliters of fluid). In fact, the majority of the cited ranges are greater than 6 microliters, going all the way up to 1,000 microliters, such that there would be forward flow in these examples. See Ex. 1030 ¶ 29; Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326–27 (“[O]ne cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention. In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the blaze marks directing the skilled artisan to that tree must be in the originally filed disclosure.”); Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996).” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “AIA § 102 draws a distinction between actually being entitled to a right of priority to, or the benefit of, a prior-filed application according to the definition of “effective filing date” of a claimed invention in AIA 35 U.S.C. § 100(i)(1)(B), and merely being entitled to claim a right of priority to, or the benefit of, a prior-filed application for prior-art purposes according to the use of “effectively filed” in AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). See 35 U.S.C. §§ 100(i)(1)(B), 102(a)(2), 102(d)(2); MPEP § 2154.01(b). USPTO guidance also indicates that AIA § 102 prior-art reference effective-filing-date determinations differ from pre-AIA law. For example, a 2018 Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps states, in the context of prior-art determinations, that “[t]he requirement that one of the claims in the patent [document] . . . be supported by the written description of the provisional application in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (or AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)), is not applicable when examining an application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.” Robert W. Bahr, Memorandum re: Critical Reference Date Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e) (Apr. 5, 2018), available at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/dynamic_memo_05apr2018_0.pdf (emphasis added) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381 n.2; 157 Cong. Rec. 3423 (2011) (explaining the distinction between being entitled to claim priority or benefit in AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) and actually being entitled to priority or benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119, 120, or 365)). This Memorandum further indicates: The date subject matter was “effectively filed” under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) for purposes of considering a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an international application publication as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) is discussed in MPEP § 2154.01(b), and is not affected by Dynamic Drinkware or [Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017)] and is not being modified by this memorandum. Id. at 2. MPEP § 2154.01(b) explicitly states, as a result of the distinction discussed above, in application of the AIA version of § 102, “the question of whether a patent or published application is actually entitled to priority or benefit with respect to any of its claims is not at issue in determining the date the patent or published application was ‘effectively filed’ for prior art purposes.” MPEP § 2154.01(b) (emphases added).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,531,883 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,531,883
• Lti Flexible Products, Inc. D/B/A Boyd Corporation v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01189 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

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

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

    “Petitioner contends that “the ordinary and customary meaning of the term ‘pitch’ in [c]laim 9 encompasses the definition of ‘pitch’ given in [c]laim 1—‘a distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microfabricated structure.’” Pet. 15. No claim term was interpreted expressly for our Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 10. Patent Owner does not propose expressly any interpretation for any claim term. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner, however, states that “claim 1 of the ’728 Patent expressly defines the claimed ‘pitch’ of the microfabricated structures as being ‘a distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microstructure.’” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:45–48). Patent Owner notes that “[c]laim 9 does not include this particular definition, but the Board apparently applied the definition of the ‘pitch’ limitation in claim 1 to claim 9, as did Petitioner.” Id. “Patent Owner does not dispute or disagree with this.” Id. Based on the full record and because the parties do not dispute it, we apply the definition of pitch in claim 1 to the recited pitch of claim 9. Also, based on the full record, we determine that no other claim term requires express interpretation. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,309,728 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,309,728
• Carrier Fire & Security Americas Corporation v. Sentrilock, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 14, 2022 · IPR2021-00665 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, and 10–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Mosgrove and Harold, and independently over Kniffin and Maloney.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art has “at least a Bachelor’s degree [in] Electronics, Electrical, or Mechanical Engineering or related discipline, [and/]or at least three years of experience 8 Patent Owner argues in its Response that Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Comerford, lacks credibility, improperly implies claim constructions, does not take the level of ordinary skill into account, relies on improper hindsight, and is biased in favor of Petitioner because of employment history, and, hence, we should give his testimony “no weight.” See Resp. 6– 16. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s positions. The evidence shows that Mr. Comerford is qualified to testify on the issues in this proceeding, and we find his opinions are based on his understanding of the perspective of the ordinarily skilled artisan, his experience, the ordinary meaning of claim terms, and the disclosures of the prior art, are supported by evidence, and do not rely on the ’589 patent as a roadmap so as to infect his opinions with improper hindsight. See generally Ex. 1002; Ex. 1028; Ex. 1029. working with access control devices.”9 Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). Such a person of ordinary skill in the art could have both this level of education and experience without straying from Petitioner’s definition. Patent Owner neither contests Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan nor proposes an alternative. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, however, expressly adopts Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2015 ¶ 20. We likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it here. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner states that “[f]or purposes of this IPR, Petitioner does not believe any claim term requires a construction in order to resolve if the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.” Pet. 24. Patent Owner indicates it agrees with Petitioner “that the terms of the Challenged Claims should be understood as written.” See Resp. 4–5. 9 We understand Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan to be inclusive regarding education and experience because such is reflected in Mr. Comerford’s cited testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 19 (“I am such a person” and identifying his education and experience). We agree with the parties and determine that no claim term requires express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). C.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “In order to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) (benefit of provisional application’s filing date requires disclosure of claimed invention “in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112”); Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381–82 (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571–72. We agree with Petitioner that the ’773 provisional does not describe the key identification device required by the claims so as to satisfy § 112. Such a component is described by the ’400 patent as the RFID tag. See Ex. 1006, Fig. 5 (element 74). The ’773 provisional, on the other hand, describes nothing that could be considered the claimed key identification device “for attachment to [the] at least one key” as recited by claims 1 and 14. Ex. 1001, 21:41–43, 22:38–40. Nothing in the ’773 provisional hints that anything, be it a tag or generic device, is attached to its otherwise disclosed key; therefore, we cannot agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. See generally Ex. 1005. The ’773 provisional merely indicates that a key can be contained in, removed from, and replaced in a key container module that can somehow sense the key’s presence, but provides no description as to how this sensing is accomplished, and certainly does not describe that anything attached to the key allows this sensing. Id. ¶ 4. slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. This is the case here where Mosgrove’s wireless communication system exists already and is merely redirected. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417. Further, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements [of the prior art] in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. This is the case here where the techniques of Harold illuminate an advantage to be had using Mosgrove’s existing system (or a slightly modified Mosgrove system). We find a reason existed to combine and modify the prior art: efficiency and streamlining. See Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (making things stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient are universal motivators to combine/modify prior art). And, as Mosgrove’s disclosed key containers have wireless communication capability, simply specifying that the communications will be between the key container and the computer rather than between the key container and keypad is no technological leap. It would have required only the use of known components and techniques to yield predictable results, and we find there would have been a reasonable expectation for success. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 79; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (to be nonobvious, an improvement must more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions). slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,606,589 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,606,589
• Carrier Fire & Security Americas Corporation v. Sentrilock, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 14, 2022 · IPR2021-00664 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 23, 24, 28, 29, 35, 37, and 39–47 are unpatentable as obvious over Mosgrove, Harold, and Imran; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “a person with at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electronics, Electrical, or Mechanical Engineering or related discipline, [and/]or at least three years of experience working with access control devices.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19).10 Such a person of ordinary skill in the art could have both this level of education and experience without straying from Petitioner’s definition. Patent Owner neither contests Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan nor proposes an alternative. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, however, expressly adopts Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2015 ¶ 20. We likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it here.11 hindsight, and is biased in favor of Petitioner because of employment history, and, hence, we should give his testimony “no weight.” See Resp. 9– 19. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s positions. The evidence shows that Mr. Comerford is qualified to testify on the issues in this proceeding, and we find his opinions are based on his understanding of the perspective of the ordinarily skilled artisan, his experience, the ordinary meaning of claim terms, and the disclosures of the prior art, are supported by evidence, and do not rely on the ’541 patent as a roadmap so as to infect his opinions with improper hindsight. See generally Ex. 1002; Ex. 1028; Ex. 1029. 10 We understand Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan to be inclusive regarding education and experience because such is reflected in Mr. Comerford’s cited testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 19 (“I am such a person.”). 11 The parties use the acronym POSA to refer to the person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Pet.; Resp.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner states that “[f]or purposes of this IPR, Petitioner does not believe any claim term requires a construction in order to resolve if the Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on the prior art presented.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner indicates it agrees with Petitioner “that the terms of the Challenged Claims should be understood as written.” See Resp. 6–7. We agree with the parties and determine that no claim term requires express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). C.” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “In order to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) (benefit of provisional application’s filing date requires disclosure of claimed invention “in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112”); Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381–82 (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571–72. We agree with Petitioner that the ’773 provisional does not describe the key identification tag/device required by all claims so as to satisfy § 112. Such a component is described by the ’400 patent as the RFID tag. See Ex. 1006, Fig. 5 (element 74). The ’773 provisional, on the other hand, describes nothing that could be considered the claimed key identification tag or device “for attachment to the at least one key” as recited by claim 23 or “attaching a key identification device to a key” as recited by claim 45. Ex. 1002, 23:1–5, 24:32–35. Nothing in the ’773 provisional hints that anything, be it a tag or generic device, is attached to its otherwise disclosed key; therefore, we cannot agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. See generally Ex. 1005. The ’773 provisional merely indicates that a key can be contained in, removed from, and replaced in a key container module that can somehow sense the key’s presence, but provides no description as to how this sensing is accomplished, and certainly does not describe that anything attached to the key allows this sensing. Id. ¶ 4. slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Trial Practice Guide we explain that a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in [a] reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g.[,] to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019)14 (“CTPG” or “Trial Practice Guide”) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Trial Practice Guide further explains that “‘[r]espond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing,” and “[w]hile replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Id. at 74. “In most cases, the Board is capable of identifying new issues or belatedly presented evidence when weighing the evidence at the close of trial, and disregarding any new issues or belatedly presented evidence that exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” CTPG 80 (Nov. 2019). The Board has regularly shown this capability. See Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The Board refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)); Apple Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“Accepting . . . 14 Available at www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”). Thus, we find any suggestion by Petitioner that Mosgrove’s entire key container or key compartment is the conductive container of Diaferia is a new and late argument, which we will not consider. Likewise, we find any suggestion by Petitioner that some sort of wire or cable (or something of that nature) might be used to connect a key put inside a conductive container to a key tag that is outside that conductive container so that the tag might be inserted into a key-sensing circuit is also a new and late argument, which we will not consider.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,949,541 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,949,541

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.