- Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2026 · PGR2025-00027 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 8–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pet.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329 to institute a post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,920 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’920 patent”), claims 1–20. We issued an Institution Decision (Paper 12) granting the petitioned review. slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“thereby supporting our conclusion that the plain and ordinary meaning of “affordance” in claim 1 refers to an interactive user interface element.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Petitioner’s reliance on Low’s” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,966,920 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,966,920 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · PGR2025-00028 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds after finding claim 1 more likely than not unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Director may not authorize a post-grant review unless the information in the petition, if unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute a post-grant review as to claims 1–20 of the ’423 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art would have had “an educational background of, or practical experience equivalent to, a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems,” where “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’423 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’423 patent and cited 2 Petitioner states that it “takes no position on the proper priority date for the [c]hallenged [c]laims” and “uses the earliest possible priority date claimed, December 18, 2013,” for purposes of its asserted grounds. Pet. 14. prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–2:21 (stating that “[t]he present application relates to the field of payment processing systems” and describing the functionality of payment accepting units in the “Background” section).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Petitioner states that, “for purposes of [its] Petition, the Board need not construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes, and the claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner agrees that “[n]o constructions are necessary” to decide the issues disputed by the parties. Prelim. Resp. 2–3. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute a post-grant review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelNot reached
“For the reasons explained below, we conclude, on the merits and based on the current record, that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable as claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Pet. 77–84. Accordingly, we need not determine at this time whether collateral estoppel applies based on the Board’s decision in PGR2021-00093. The parties, however, should address the issue in their papers during trial, with citations to relevant authority. In particular, the parties are encouraged to address (1) how the collateral estoppel requirement that the issue be “identical to one decided in the first action” applies in the context of an asserted ground under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and (2) the parties’ apparent disagreement as to whether collateral estoppel may be applied in such circumstances on a “limitation-by-limitation basis.” See Pet. 72, 75 (quoting Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022)); Prelim. Resp. 20–21; see also Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., – F.4th –, No. 2023-1359, 2025 WL 2178321, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (Dyk, J., dissenting) (“In subsequent Board proceedings, it is well established that collateral estoppel applies to claims adjudicated by the Board to be unpatentable and also to ‘related claims that present identical issues of patentability,’ i.e., patentably indistinct claims. . . . ‘It is well established that patent claims need not be identical for collateral estoppel to apply.’” (citing MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Google, 54 F.4th at 1381)).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,972,423 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · PGR2025-00027 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding claim 1 more likely than not ineligible under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A. Legal Standards — Petitioner’s Burden In a post-grant review, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), which is identical to 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3) in requiring petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”). This 2 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’920 patent “would have had an educational background of, or practical experience equivalent to, a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26. Further: “Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. generally. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’920 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’920 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–2:21 (stating “[t]he present application relates to the field of payment processing systems” and describing the functionality of payment accepting units in the “BACKGROUND” section).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues “the Board need not construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner argues: “No constructions are necessary to deny institution because denial is warranted for numerous reasons that do not depend on claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 3. However, as discussed below, several of Patent Owner’s arguments seeking to distinguish claim 1 from Low rely on underlying claim construction positions. Except as discussed below in connection with those arguments, we determine no explicit construction is needed to resolve the parties’ controversy as to whether institution should be granted here. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionInstituted
“We determine Petitioner has made a sufficient showing for Step 2A, Prong 1 based on the current record. Petitioner addresses each of limitations [1.2]–[1.14] and explains how they support Petitioner’s contention that the claim, as a whole, is directed to the alleged abstract idea. See Pet. 80–84. For example, Petitioner notes specifically how limitation [1.2], reciting “identifying one or more payment accepting units,” pertains to identifying a merchant, and how limitations [1.6], [1.7], and [1.9] recite user interaction using the mobile device that enables the completion of a purchase. See id. Petitioner thus shows sufficiently how claim 1, by virtue of the limitations reproduced above,5 recites the concept of “identifying a merchant and enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant.” Id. at 80.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,966,920 - Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,830,546 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,707,033 - Profrac Holding Corporation / U.S. Well Services, LLC v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · PGR2023-00023 · APJ Brent M Dougal · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under §101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more; the Board did not reach the asserted §103 grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a B.S. in Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science, or Metallurgical Engineering or an equivalent field and at least two years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including experience with process control systems. Further, a person with additional education but less professional experience, and vice-versa, may qualify. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 4). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’058 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In post-grant review, we construe claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2022). Neither Petitioner, nor Patent Owner, provides constructions of any claim terms. Pet. 25; PO Resp 6–7. We determine that no terms need to be construed. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“formation response data comprising data from one or more downhole sensors or surface sensors” and “selecting a representative system model based on the received formation response data and sequence of stimuli” are mental processes. We determine that the record supports that they are. The Background of the ’058 patent supports our finding that these steps are mental processes. In particular, the ’058 patent teaches that it was known that “a technician may review sensor data” and that “a representative system model may be used for determining pump settings based on sensor information; however, the representative system model is typically manually selected by a technician based on observed sensor data.” Id. at 22 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:9–26); see also Dec. 23–24 (preliminarily finding these claimed patent). Regarding the claimed step of “controlling an electrical fracturing pump based on the representative system model,” Patent Owner does argue, and we agree, that it is not a mental process in that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have performed it in the human mind. PO Resp. 27. We also agree that the Petition does not expressly argue that the step of “generating a sequence of stimuli for application to a well environment” is a mental process. However, the ’058 patent explains that these two steps may be performed via a generic computer. Ex. 1001, 6:6–36, 6:65–7:33, 8:56–9:28. Requiring the use of a computer does not change the focus of the claim away from being directed towards an abstract idea. “[T]he inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“As we have explained, ‘the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’” (quoting Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). See also Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, 107 F.4th 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2024). (“We are not persuaded that claim 1 cannot be directed to an abstract idea even if certain steps cannot be completed in the mind or by pen and paper. . . . [R]equiring the use of a computer alone does not change the focus of a claim directed towards an abstract idea into one directed towards ‘a specific improvement to computer functionality.’ In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“4. Step 2B Under Step 2B, only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. applying the … abstract idea using techniques that are, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, well-understood, routine, and conventional.’ cxLoyalty Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 986 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021).” Pet. 97. The Petition cites the Background of the ’058 patent to support its argument that the specification admits that many of the claimed steps were known. Id. at 91. In the oil and gas industry, electric frac pumps are often controlled in order to achieve certain downhole environment responses. However, typically settings are performed manually based on manually appraised information retrieved from the downhole environment. For example, a technician may review sensor data and, based on experience, adjust various settings such as flow rate, pressure values, chemical compositions, etc., on an electric frac pump. In some cases, a representative system model may be used for determining pump settings based on sensor information; however, the representative system model is typically manually selected by a technician based on observed sensor data. Additionally, the representative system model may be a static construct and may not accurately reflect the well to which it has been deployed. Ex. 1001, 1:9–26 (emphasis added). From the above, it will be understood that much of claim 1 was well-understood, routine, and conventional, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination. The above paragraph makes clear that “controlling an electrical fracturing pump based on the representative system model” was known and conventional. In addition, adjusting settings on an electrical fracturing pump is also how the ’058 patent teaches to generate a sequence of stimuli. Ex. 1001, 2:25–33 (“A given stimulus of the sequence of stimuli can be achieved by adjusting . . . flow rates . . . . In some examples, a sequence can include a various amplitudes (e.g., high, medium, low, etc.).”). Thus, generating a sequence of stimuli is also acknowledged as being known in the Background. See also Dec. 22–23 (preliminarily finding that these limitations were known). Petitioner provides additional argument that other references also show that these limitations were known. See e.g., Pet. 94. However, it is not necessary for us to review these in view of the express acknowledgement of the state of the art in ’058 patent. Based on the record, we determine that claim 1 does not include any specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 11,373,058 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Enfish · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,373,058 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,659,803 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,666,020 - Ironsource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · PGR2022-00053 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable under collateral estoppel; revised substitute claims 23–37 are allowed because Petitioner did not prove them unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel must show: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against who collateral estoppel is being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action. Google, 54 F.4th at 1381 (quoting In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Collateral estoppel may also operate to bar re-litigation of common issues in actions involving different but related patents. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 252 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Amgen, Inc. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 98 F.3d 1328, 1329–32 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We are persuaded that each of the four Google requirements is satisfied and, accordingly, agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’256 patent are unpatentable in light of our Final Written Decision in PGR2021-00096.” slip op. at 13
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). But “failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims” is what Petitioner’s analysis of the claim limitations appears to do. Petitioner’s argument that “the focus of the claims” is captured by a single claim element (f3) not only ignores that that limitation recites performing two specific software tasks simultaneously—which we are not persuaded is an abstract idea—but also asks us to disregard multiple technical aspects recited in the claims, such as identifying a link, determining whether an installation client is available on the device, invoking the installation client, and redirecting to the device an app store. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:12–41; Revised MTA 24–25. That is, under Step 2A of the Guidance, we are neither persuaded that limitation f3, which Petitioner points us to, recites an abstract idea (Prong 1), nor that the other limitations recited in the independent claims fail to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2). Petitioner characterizes the claims as directed to multitasking, which Petitioner describes as an example applied to improve a user experience, i.e., as related to organizing human activity. Pet. 29. Although the Guidance recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity, including certain activity between a person and a computer, as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we are not persuaded that the claims here fall within the scope of such activity. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships as organizing human activity). The claimed invention may result in multitasking on the device, but the background instead of directing the user to an app store, thereby maintaining user experience with the foreground application, and do not recite an abstract idea. And although that process does result in improving user experience, the claims recite more than that mere result; they recite specific steps—invoking, without exiting the foreground software application, the installation client for downloading and installing applications on the device to run in the background—that accomplish the desired result. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding a method that employs a new kind of file in a computer security system directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security writ large). Petitioner thus fails to establish sufficiently that the claims are directed patent ineligible subject matter under Step 2A of the Guidance.” slip op. at 52
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“When the application package 172 has been received by the client system 130, the App Manager 180 may extract or retrieve a set of requested permissions 174 from the application package 172, and present a request to the user for asking for approval to perform operations corresponding to the requested permissions, e.g., opening files, accessing contact information, accessing a camera on the client device 130, and so on. . . . In particular embodiments, when the requested permissions 174 have been requested, and a response specifying a set of accepted permissions 176 has been received from the user, the set of accepted permissions 176 may be compared to the set of requested permissions 174. If the sets are the same, then the installation process may continue, and the App Manager 180 may invoke an installer 182 to install the application package 172. Ex. 1003, 8:67–9:22 (emphasis added). That is, the set of permissions to be checked are obtained by the App Manager once the download of the application package to be installed is initiated. See id. at 8:59–61 (“when the download is initiated by a request sent from the client system 130 to the server 162, the server 162 may send the requested object, e.g., the download page 168 or the application package 172, back to the client system 130”). And these permissions relate to operations that the installed applications may perform, e.g., opening files, accessing contact information, accessing a camera on the client device. Id. at 9:6–7. These permissions may also indirectly determine whether the installation client can install that app. See id. at 9:33–38. There is no suggestion in Pasha, however, that these permissions have anything to do with the host application, i.e., the second software application. said second software application is eligible to use capabilities of the installation client.” RMTA 25; see also Ex. 1001, 15:11–14 (“The installation client, upon receiving an instant install link, checks the eligibility of the caller and if identified as eligible continues the process of downloading the app.”). Pasha does not teach or suggest checking eligibility of its host application in any way or at any point. Moreover, as Patent Owner points out, Pasha’s App Manager performs the eligibility check after it downloads the app package, further supporting that Pasha’s eligibility check has nothing to do with the host application.9 Dr. Almeroth testifies that “Pasha discloses the App Manager 180 confirming that it has obtained the required permissions, which, in [his] opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand may include inter alia that the ‘second software application’ (e.g., the host application invoking the app manager) is eligible to use its capabilities.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 68. Dr. Almeroth fails to cite any supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Id. Because we find no basis in the record for Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion, we give little weight to this testimony.” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Almeroth testifies that “Pasha discloses the App Manager 180 confirming that it has obtained the required permissions, which, in [his] opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand may include inter alia that the ‘second software application’ (e.g., the host application invoking the app manager) is eligible to use its capabilities.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 68. Dr. Almeroth fails to cite any supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Id. Because we find no basis in the record for Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion, we give little weight to this testimony. 9 During oral argument, Petitioner pointed us to disclosure in Pasha that teaches that the permission dialog may be displayed to the user at different points in the download process. Tr. 47:24–48:8 (citing Ex. 1003, 22:21–42). As Patent Owner pointed out, this disclosure was not relied up on by Petitioner in its papers and is new evidence. Id. at 51:19–22; Paper 46, 4. Petitioner’s argument based on this new evidence is therefore forfeited. But even if we were to consider the cited disclosure from Pasha, it still only suggests that permissions need to come from the server after the download process has been initiated, and are therefore, unrelated to the host application. See Ex. 1003, 22:46–49 (“the requested permissions may be downloaded prior to downloading the application or may be extracted from the application package”). 24, 2022) (precedential) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). As the Board explained in Xerox, such expert testimony “is particularly problematic in cases where, like here, expert testimony is offered not simply to provide a motivation to combine prior-art teachings, but rather to supply a limitation missing from the prior art.” Id. (citing Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 11,157,256 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Berkheimer · Enfish · PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,157,256 - PTAB · Mar 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00053 · APJ James P Calve · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds because the petition showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a similar discipline, with at least two years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing, planning, or implementing sensor networks using LIDAR, radar and/or cameras and corresponding data analysis” and “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18– 23). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’349 patent and the prior art of record, and we adopt it for consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[n]o terms require construction to determine that claims 1–20 are invalid under §§ 101, 102, 103.” Pet. 9. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the construction of any term or phrase. On the present record, we determine that we do not need to construe any claim terms to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,538,349
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.