• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,966,920
• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2026 · PGR2025-00028 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 8–20 are unpatentable under § 102, § 103, or § 101; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish its limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “1. Legal Standards “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be” slip op. at 10

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

    “2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Kinetic Concepts, 688 F.3d at 1368). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); accord In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “conclusory statements” amount to an “insufficient articulation[] of motivation to combine”; “instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (quoting In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 36

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionMixed

    “because the “user interface” limitations merely apply the recited abstract idea on a generic mobile device without meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. See 2025 Guidance, at 4–5. For example, these limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the mobile device (or any other computer device), and instead are “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on” the mobile device. Id. Indeed, the ’423 patent specification describes only a generic “swipe-to-pay” feature. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:13–33, Figs. 8C, 10A–10D. This supports our conclusion here that the claim 11 limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (“[T]he specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and “it must describe” slip op. at 108

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptMixed

    “because the “user interface” limitations merely apply the recited abstract idea on a generic mobile device without meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. See 2025 Guidance, at 4–5. For example, these limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the mobile device (or any other computer device), and instead are “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on” the mobile device. Id. Indeed, the ’423 patent specification describes only a generic “swipe-to-pay” feature. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:13–33, Figs. 8C, 10A–10D. This supports our conclusion here that the claim 11 limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (“[T]he specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and “it must describe” slip op. at 108

  Patent outcomesUS 11,972,423 mixed
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,972,423
• Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,333,007
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00530 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board denied the contingent motion to amend proposing substitute claims 17–32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “iv. Claim 1 Conclusion Based on the complete record presented, Petitioner has shown that Gage teaches all limitations of claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Gage. v. Independent claim 8 Independent claim 8 recites a method of “providing situation related information to a situation authority via a situational network,” wherein the method comprises “receiving, by a participant device, a roll call query soliciting a reply related to a status of a participant based on the participant being determined, by the situation authority, to be geographically proximate to the situation,” “receiving, by the participant device, a selection of a status response from the participant,” and “sending the status response to the central authority, wherein the status response is included in a roll call list.” Ex. 1001, 34:46–57. Petitioner generally refers to its contentions with respect to claim 1. Pet. 34–36. In particular, Petitioner contends that Gage teaches a subscriber device that communicates a status indicator to the disaster response system through a subscriber status reporting system that implements a “situational network” configured for use during disasters. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 25). Petitioner additionally contends that Gage’s “disaster response system” is a “situation authority” because the disaster response system detects an occurrence of a disaster affecting a region, receives and aggregates information related to the disaster, and then provides the information to various participants in the network. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8–9, 21, 36, 45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 104). With respect to the “situational network” limitation, Patent Owner” slip op. at 39

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

    “1. “situational network” (claims 1, 8, 13) Patent Owner points out that the district court has already construed” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “viii. Ground 1 Conclusion In light of the above analysis, we determine that Petitioner’s evidence” slip op. at 46

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “c. Conclusion on Petitioner’s Patentability Challenges based on Obviousness for Proposed Substitute Claims For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 17–32 would have been unpatentable. IV. CONCLUSION9 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a” slip op. at 82

  Patent outcomesUS 9,877,345 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,877,345
• Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · PGR2024-00047 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any of claims 1–7 was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, 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(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as encompassing a” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 36

  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,830,546
• Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · PGR2023-00039 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 24 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept; the petitioner did not prove the remaining challenged claims unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id. (citation omitted). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a degree in chemical engineering, petroleum engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field with 1–2 years of experience in designing power generation systems, Blockchain mining systems, or other comparable hands-on experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner adds that “[a]lternatively, a person having 3–5 years of experience in the Blockchain mining industry would also qualify as a POSITA” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We apply the same claim construction standard used in district court actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2024). In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).” slip op. at 11

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

    “To address that “the mining processors are connected to the network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database,” as recited by limitation [1c_iii], Petitioner asserts that CryptoKube’s system includes “Bitcoin miners such as spondooliestech SP35 servers.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4). And, relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Kasdorf, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that to mine Bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database, which is implemented as a public ledger distributed among many peer-to-peer devices connected to the Internet. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 108–109; Ex. 1010 ¶ 419). Mr. Kasdorf’s declaration testimony is nearly verbatim to the Petition and similarly provides no indication as to what in CryptoKube constitutes a “mining processor” other than his conclusory opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that to mine bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the 19 We note that Mr. Kasdorf’s reliance on Kheterpal is limited to Kheterpal’s background discussion regarding the Bitcoin protocol inasmuch as it “defines a system in which the creation and distribution of the bitcoin cryptocurrency is governed by consensus among a peer-to-peer network” and includes “a public ledger in which new transactions are verified and recorded by members of the network via cryptography.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 4). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that in the Petition, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Kasdorf explains or “cite[s] any evidence regarding which component is the ‘necessarily’ present mining processor (limitation 1[c_i]) or how this unspecified mining processor is ‘connected to the network interface and adapted to . . . communicate with the blockchain database’ (limitation 1[c_iii]).” PO Resp. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 104–105, 108–109).” slip op. at 21

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s contention that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation” (Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 21)) is an improper new argument. In determining whether an argument is a proper argument in reply, we look to see if the Reply argument is responsive to an argument from Patent Owner and expands on a position in the Petition. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e have held that a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.”). Or, if Petitioner relies on previously unidentified disclosure “to make a meaningfully distinct contention.” Id. at 1383 (“[W]e held that a petitioner who asserted in its reply previously unidentified prior-art disclosures ‘to make a meaningfully distinct contention’ was impermissibly raising a new theory of unpatentability.”). We find that Petitioner’s argument in reply is closer to the later situation. Here Petitioner does not expand on a position from the Petition that Patent Owner criticizes based on the merits of the contentions. Rather, Petitioner supplements its conclusory assertion that a “mining processor” is necessarily present in CryptoKube’s spondooliestech SP35 servers (Pet. 23, 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4)) with its new assertion that that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation.” Pet. Reply 11. Petitioner does not purport to have presented this theory in the Petition. Id. Instead, Petitioner argues that this theory was properly raised in response to what Petitioner alleges to be an admission by” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,574,372 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,574,372
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00025 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–20 were more likely than not unpatentable over either obviousness ground, for lack of utility, or as indefinite.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’033 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–22, 44–45). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’033 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level”” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner does not offer a specific construction for any claim terms. Pet. 19–20. Rather, Petitioner contends that “the outer boundary of the Challenged Claims lacks reasonable certainty,” and, therefore, “the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b).” Pet. 20. Petitioner further contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious “regardless of the outer boundary of the claims.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s arguments regarding indefiniteness, and does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. As explained in detail below, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, and determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner focuses its obviousness challenge on 1PNZQ23’s phenotype, and does not address its genotype. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 26–32 (comparing 1PNZQ23’s phenotype with the phenotypes of the asserted prior art). Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any information in the Petition or Reply regarding 1PNZQ23’s genotype that supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding obviousness. Furthermore, Patent Owner offers information suggesting that “the breeding of 1PNZQ23 was unpredictable even with both parents being known in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Schnable addresses unpredictability in the breeding process, stating: distinct even when the F1 plant itself results from a cross of two inbreds. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not expect that a cross of the same parents will produce F2 or D1 progeny identical to 1PNZQ23. . . . [T]he genome of a progeny plant is the result of genetic segregation and recombination in the F1 plant of the two parental genomes and the chance of the exact same child resulting from that initial biparental cross is infinitesimally small. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123. This information undermines Petitioner’s arguments regarding an expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,707,033
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · PGR2024-00023 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because the petition did not show they were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness, utility, written-description, or enablement ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’545 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist as along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’545 patent, and we adopt it for purposes” slip op. at 6

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

    “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) (2019). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 7

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

    “additional reasons. For example, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at PH4CYJ based on Smalley’s disclosure alone. Prelim. Resp. 51–52. According to the ’545 patent specification, the claimed PH4CYJ inbred maize variety is a cross between inbred line PH1VNA and inbred line PH1KTF. Ex. 1001, 37:62–64. In the simplest terms, PH1VNA and PH1KTF are the parents, and their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety PH4CYJ. The ’545 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,696,545
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00019 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because the Petition did not show they were more likely than not unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–20 of the ’803 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a post-grant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’803 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner also does not construe and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety 1PFLQ21. The ’803 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the selection of the progeny was based on genetic analysis predicting disease, insect, and agronomic phenotypic performance. Id. 37:64–66. “Inbred 1PFLQ21 was developed by producing a doubled haploid from the F1 plants, selfing and using pedigree selection amongst the D1 lines, and selfing and bulking from the subsequent generations.” Id. 37:66–38:3. The ’803 patent specification, therefore, makes it clear that simply crossing both parental inbred maize lines is not reasonably expected to result in the claimed inbred maize variety; rather, it explains that more plant breeding work is required to arrive at the 1PFLQ21 inbred maize line than just having both parental inbred maize lines available.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,659,803
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00020 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  Denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood equivalent under § 324 that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’020 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a high level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist . . . along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art,” but “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’020 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Based on these disclosures in Smalley, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the parental line PH1D84 could have been used as a starting point to arrive at other inbred lines. See Pet. 41. Petitioner, however, fails to demonstrate sufficiently how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in developing 1PFHC43 specifically, when its other parent was not known in the art at the relevant time. As Dr. Schnable explains, 1PFHC43’s genome is derived from its parents. Ex. 2004 ¶ 115. Petitioner does not address how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce the claimed seed, including its unique genotype, without having access to PH1VNA or its genomic and phenotypic information.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,666,020

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.