- Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00738 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Sun, Dodick, and Sharma; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the problems” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“1. “A subject having refractory migraine” The phrase “a subject having refractory migraine” appears in the preamble to claim 1. Ex. 1001, 173:2–3. The parties agree that the preamble is limiting because it provides context and antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. Pet. 12 (“Claim 1’s preamble . . . should be construed as limiting at least because it provides context and antecedent [basis] for the claimed ‘therapeutically effective amount.’”); PO Resp. 9 (“There is no dispute that the preamble ‘[a] method of treating or preventing migraine in a subject having refractory migraine, the method comprising’ is limits the claim for the reasons expressed by the parties. Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding that the phrase “treatment of sleep apneas” in the preamble of an interference count was limiting because it provided antecedent basis for the phrase “to a patient in need of such treatment” in the body of the interference count); see also Eli Lilly Co. v. Teva Pharmas Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (discussing construction of claims directed to “methods of using a composition for a specific purpose,” explaining, “while there is no bright-line rule for determining whether a preamble is limiting, we have generally construed statements of intended purpose in such method claims as limiting”). We turn now to the meaning of the phrase “a subject having refractory migraine.” The parties agree that the ’160 patent expressly defines the phrase “a subject having refractory migraine.” Pet. 13; PO Resp. 9. In this regard, the ’160 patent states: As used herein, refractory migraine patients (or “subject having refractory migraine”) are considered refractory if they have a documented inadequate response (in a medical chart or by treating physician’s confirmation) to at least two preventive medications (from a different cluster, defined below). Refractory migraine patients can also be considered refractory if they have a documented inadequate response (in a medical chart or by treating physician’s confirmation) to two to four classes of prior preventive medications (from different cluster[s], as defined below), e.g., inadequate response to two classes of prior preventive medications, inadequate response to three classes of prior preventative medications, or an inadequate response to four classes of prior preventative medications. Ex. 1001, 18:59–19:5. Thus, a “subject having refractory migraine” should be construed as: a migraine patient having a documented inadequate least two preventive medications from a different cluster. Id.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“understand the term “adverse event” to be limited to “serious” events. Ex. 2004, 1; Ex. 1208, 1; Ex. 1209, 6; Ex. 1210, 8. The only evidence to the contrary is the testimony of Dr. Grosberg. Ex. 2037 ¶ 45. Because Dr. Grosberg’s testimony is inconsistent with the evidence he relies upon, we decline to give it substantial weight. We recognize that the Specification of the ’160 patent includes language imposing some degree of severity on the “adverse event.” Specifically, the adverse event must be significant enough to cause treatment to be “interrupted” because the event made the treatment become “intolerable by the patient.” But, we find no support in the record for imposing an additional severity requirement by effectively limiting the term “adverse event” to “serious adverse events.” Accordingly, we decline to construe the term “adverse event” to mean “a serious undesirable experience associated with the use of a treatment” as proposed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 12. We do not find it necessary to further construe the term “adverse event” to resolve this dispute.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d) Conclusion regarding Sun’s disclosure of the claimed patients For the reasons discussed supra §§ II.F.1.a–c, we find that Petitioner” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,028,160 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,028,160 - Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,722,253 - PTAB · Sep 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00712 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 6–8, 14, and 16–18 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Fintiv Order 5–6. In evaluating these factors, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6. Additionally, the Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation issued by the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Memorandum”)10 provides that the Board will not discretionarily deny institution of inter partes review “where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memorandum, 3.” slip op. at 9
- Parallel petitionsNot reached
“9 Petitioner filed an Explanation of Parallel Petitions in both this proceeding and in IPR2023-00713 stating that it requests that the Board consider the Petition in this proceeding first, followed by the petition filed in IPR2023- 00713. Paper 4, 1. Accordingly, we do not reach the issue of whether institution of inter partes review based on a second petition is warranted in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree and/or master’s degree in mechanical engineering or industrial design, along with at least 4 to 6 years of experience designing consumer or medical device products to optimize human factors such as handleability or ergonomics.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “completed college-level coursework, and/or obtained a bachelor’s degree, in engineering, such as mechanical engineering or biomechanical engineering, or another similar discipline, and (2) have had at least one year of experience researching, developing, and/or designing mechanical medical devices.” Prelim. Resp. 5. Patent Owner further states that its Preliminary Response “does not turn on the definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. Although Patent Owner notes that Petitioner proposes “a higher level of skill,” at this stage of the proceeding neither Party has shown a material difference between the levels of skill each has proposed and either Party may further address the issue, if necessary, during the trial. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill because, on the current record, it is consistent with the level of skill at the time of the claimed invention reflected by the ’635 patent and the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,840,635 - Infineon Technologies AG v. Feinics Amatech TeorantaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00650 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 11–14, and 16 are unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDenied
“To succeed, a motion to submit supplemental information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) must meet two requirements. First, the motion must show why the supplemental information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier. 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b). Second, the motion must show that consideration of the supplemental information would be in the interest of justice. Id. As we explain below, Patent Owner’s motion fails to meet either requirement.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other
“B. Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slides Patent Owner objects to a number of Petitioner’s demonstratives for oral argument because, for example, the demonstratives constitute evidence that Petitioner did not reference or discuss in a prior paper. See, e.g., Paper 29 passim. We have considered the objections. Demonstratives for oral argument, however, are not evidence. Paper 24, 2 (Order Setting Oral Argument); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 84, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the final hearing are aids to oral argument and not evidence.”). We do not rely on demonstratives as evidence in our decision making; instead, we rely solely on the arguments properly presented in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record. Because demonstratives do not affect our decision making, Patent Owner’s objections to the demonstratives likewise do not affect our decision making. We dismiss Patent Owner’s objections as moot.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennas used in RFID devices versus developing antennas used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The specification of the ’304 patent describes its technical field as relating to a smart card that may comprise an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip with antenna components for operating in contactless modes. Ex. 1001, 1:37–54. The specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See, e.g., id. at 3:14–39. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be used by various RFID systems. See Ex. 2005, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Id. Thus, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill should be confined to developing antenna for RFID devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Pet. 7.9” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“F. Dr. van der Weide’s Testimony Patent Owner argues that we should not give substantial weight to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, for several reasons. PO Resp. 45–51. Patent Owner first argues that Dr. van der Weide lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 96). According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. at 45. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Moreover, Petitioner presents evidence that Dr. van der Weide’s experience exceeds even Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 25–27 (citations omitted). Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7; Ex. 1004 (van der Weide curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 9,633,304 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,633,304 - Infineon Technologies AG v. Feinics Amatech TeorantaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00417 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–12, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda-322.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The Specification of the ’250 patent describes its technical field as relating to a smart card that may comprise an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip with antenna components for operating in contactless modes. Ex. 1001, 1:37–54. The Specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See, e.g., id. at 3:14–39. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 2005, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill should be narrowly confined to developing antenna for RFID devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Pet. 7.5” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, for several reasons. Patent Owner first argues that Dr. van der Weide lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a person having ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 27–38 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71). According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Moreover, Petitioner presents evidence that Dr. Van der Weide’s experience exceeds even Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 22–23 (citations omitted). Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7; Ex. 1004 (van der Weide curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededTerm construed board ownMixed
“appears in independent claims 1 and 18) should be construed as “a component in a booster antenna for coupling with a module antenna connected to an integrated circuit.” PO Resp. 15–16. We determine that it is unnecessary to construe this claim term for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As we explain herein, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Takeda-322 renders the recited “coupler coil” obvious even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Section III(G)(2)(b), infra.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“to the extent Takeda-322 does not expressly teach a single wire implementation, such an implementation would have been obvious because it was a known, conventional, technique and because it would lead to obvious and predictable results while avoiding drawbacks of multiple wires. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63; Ex. 1012, 3:54–60, 4:26–36, 5:35– 60 (Ayala suggesting use of single wire)). Petitioner further argues, with supporting evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation. Id. The preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had both reason and a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation, and Patent Owner does not dispute the argument. We, thus, determine that a single-wire embodiment of Takeda-322 would have been obvious.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,033,250 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,033,250 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · PGR2023-00008 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted post-grant review of claims 1–13 on all petitioned grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute post-grant review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition, “if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’624 patent is unpatentable. Thus, we institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“evaluated the subject matter of Riis during examination of the ’624 patent, we agree that Riis was before the Office, as discussed in connection with our analysis of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework, above. Examiner T presumably was aware of Riis by virtue of having initialed an IDS containing Riis in the ’624 patent’s application and also by virtue of having initialed an IDS containing Riis in the ’067 Application, but Examiner T did not apply Riis in connection with the examination of the ’624 patent. On this record, Patent Owner also fails to show that the claims of the child application leading to the ’624 patent are substantially similar to those of the parent ’814 patent in which Examiner S considered Riis, and, thus, consideration of Riis during the prosecution of the ’814 patent does not equate to consideration of Riis during the prosecution of the ’624 patent. Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (2) that Petitioner fails to sufficiently show how the Examiner erred in evaluating the prior art, we find Petitioner’s arguments demonstrate that Examiner T, the examiner of the ’624 patent, did not apply Riis (or Wypych or Tatarka) during the examination of the’624 patent. As Petitioner argues, the error lies in that “the Examiner failed to consider the relevance of Riis as it applied to the pending method claims,” because although “Riis was considered during examination of the parent ’999 application, Riis was not similarly considered during examination of the ’018 application which led to the ’624 patent.” Pet. 76–77. We determine that the circumstances here demonstrate that the Examiner erred in evaluating the prior art.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2) to deny institution, arguing that the Petition fails to identify every RPI. Prelim. Resp. 10–11, 56–60. Patent Owner argues that the Petition “should also have identified its parent corporation, Huhtamäki Oyj . . . as well as the related corporation Huhtamaki, Inc. . . . as RPIs to comply with the statutory requirements for a PGR.” Id. at 10. On this record, we determine that we need not address whether Huhtamäki Oyj and Huhtamaki, Inc. are unnamed RPIs because, even if they were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325. See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential); Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential) (Board’s jurisdiction to consider a petition does not require a “correct” identification of all RPIs in a petition); see also Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB July 18, 2017) (“evidence [of failure to identify all RPIs] is, at best, suggestive regarding an issue that is not jurisdictional”); Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f a petition fails to identify all real parties in interest . . . the Director can, and does, allow the petitioner to add a real party in interest.” (quoting Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1374 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc))). Here, notwithstanding the arguments devoted to the RPI issue in the Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, and Preliminary Sur-Reply, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted Huhtamäki Oyj or Huhtamaki, Inc. to gain some advantage. As Petitioner argues, the “RPI analysis is not necessary at institution, because Patent Owner has not alleged Petitioner would be time barred or otherwise estopped based on unnamed RPIs.” Prelim. Reply 5 (quoting SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18). As SharkNinja states, certain Board decisions go through extensive analysis to determine whether parties should have been named as RPIs, whereas other Board decisions determine that “such a lengthy exercise is unnecessary for the purposes of rendering a decision on institution of trial.” SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 19. Here, as in SharkNinja, we find the latter approach better serves the interest of cost and efficiency. Thus, at this time and on this record, we will not consider whether Huhtamäki Oyj or Huhtamaki, Inc. must be named as RPIs.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the invention “would have had a relevant technical degree in Chemical Engineering, Polymer Science, Materials Science, or the like, and 2–3 years of experience in laminate or film manufacture or similar packaging manufacture and that less experience may be necessary with additional education and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–72). In its 4 Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner appear to present any evidence directed to secondary considerations. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp.; Prelim. Reply; Prelim. Sur-Reply. Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the prior art and the ’624 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,260,624 - PTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00214 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47–49, and 52–57 on all asserted grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“The facts here are analogous to those of Hulu, LLC. The Bogner reference provides the indicia at bottom left corner of its first page. Ex. 1007, 143. The indicia states: “Part of the SPIE Conference on Light- Emitting Diodes Research, Manufacturing and Applications III • San Jose, California • January 1999 SPIE Vol 3621 • 0277-786X/99/$10.00.” Id. The January 1999 date being printed adjacent to the name of a particular conference and San Jose, California suggests that the paper was presented at the 1999 conference. The “99” within 0277-786X/99/$10,00 indicates a 1999 publication, and the “$10.00” suggests public availability at the price of ten dollars in 1999. As further evidence, Petitioner includes in the record a page from the SPIE website that appears to be from October 12, 2022. Ex. 1007, 1. The page indicates Bogner was published “14 April 1999” in “SPIE Proceedings Vol. 3621.” Id.11 This information is consistent with the indicia on the first page of the paper itself. The evidence, in total, supports Petitioner’s contention that the paper was presented at a conference in January 1999 and then published within SPIE Proceedings Volume 3621 in April 1999–– absent contrary evidence, which Patent Owner does not advance at this stage of the proceeding. As in Hulu, LLC, the Bogner reference’s indicia provide some evidence of printed publication status. The page from the SPIE website provides further evidence. Thus, given the record as a whole, which contains some evidence that Bogner was a printed publication as of 1999 and no evidence to the contrary, and in view of the Hulu LLC precedent, we determine that Petitioner has established at this stage of the proceeding a reasonable likelihood that the Bogner reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date12 of the challenged patent.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“Conclusion Factor one weighs strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution, factor three weighs against exercising our discretion to deny institution or is neutral, factors six and seven are neutral or weakly favor discretionary denial, and the remaining factors are neutral. The balance of the General Plastic factors thus weighs against exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on the General Plastic factors.” slip op. at 24
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Here, we decline to exercise discretion to deny this Petition based upon multiple Petitions for three reasons. First, as we explain in Section III(H) of this decision, the Petition is strong on the merits, and Patent Owner has, at this stage, offered little argument refuting the merits. Second, Patent Owner’s burden to respond to both petitions is lessened by Patent Owner’s familiarity with much of the prior art at issue. As Patent Owner emphasizes, all or nearly all of the art in the Petitions was previously raised either during prior examination or in other inter partes reviews. Indeed, it seems likely that, if the Cree IPR (or related follow on IPRs) proceeds to a decision on the merits, there may be little left unresolved for the instant Petition. Institution here, however, provides Petitioner an opportunity to challenge the ’961 patent based on Krames in the event that the IPR based on Cree does not reach a decision on the merits. Third, while the two petitions present different invalidity grounds (addressing the same claims) and, as explained above, are not wholly redundant, the two parallel petitions have a great deal of overlap. Prelim. Resp. 26 (arguing that the two petitions are “redundant”). Because portions of the petitions are similar, this also reduces Patent Owner’s burden to respond. Thus, based on the totality of specific circumstances unique to these two petitions, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution based on parallel petitions.” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to challenged claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47– 49, and 52–57 of the ’961 patent. At this juncture in the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, or with respect to claim construction. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47–49, and 52–57 of the ’961 patent is hereby instituted with respect to all grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 52
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961 - PTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00213 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47–49, and 52–57 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the §103 obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Conclusion as to claim 21 Based on the evidence in the present record, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura teaches or suggests all elements of claim 21 and that Petitioner sufficiently shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings with rational underpinning and reasonable expectation of success. Thus, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura. b. Dependent Claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 Petitioner accounts for the limitations recited in claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 (which depend from claim 21). Pet. 6, 51–71. Petitioner shows sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that each element of claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 is taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura and shows reason to combine the references’ teachings with rational underpinning and reasonable expectation of success. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 are obvious in view of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura.” slip op. at 45
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree, however, that Petitioner fails to show material error. Rather, Petitioner shows sufficiently that the outcome of the reexamination hinged on Patent Owner’s representation that the prior art did not teach LED chips “configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1014, 238–239 (Patent Owner’s statement in file history); see also Ex. 1014, 159 (examiner explaining that claims are found patentable based on Patent Owner’s argument that the “greater than about 40 milliwatts” recitation is not “taught or suggested by any reference currently relied on”). Petitioner then explains in detail why Patent Owner’s representation, and the Examiner’s resulting conclusion, was in error. Pet. 20–24. Petitioner’s explanation as to why Begemann, the cited art, actually taught the “greater than about 40 milliwatts” recitation is supported by the evidence of record sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success at trial. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–93, 141–144 (Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Jokerst, explaining why the references suggest the “greater than about 40 milliwatts” recitation when a correct calculation is applied).” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“the presently cited art at the time a different petitioner filed the Cree IPR. Prelim. Resp. 27. We note, however, that this factor also includes considering whether the prior art relied on in the later petition “could have been found with reasonable diligence.” General Plastic, slip op. at 20. Although the cited references easily could have been found by reviewing the ’961 patent’s file history, it is less clear that the key alleged error in Patent Owner’s representations concerning the teachings of those references would have been readily apparent. As such, this factor is neutral. 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; Patent Owner argues that Petitioner used the Board’s institution decision (instituting trial) in the Cree IPR as a roadmap for its petitions. Prelim. Resp. 27–28. Patent Owner, however, presents no factual evidence merely result from the strength of references raised in prior reexamination rather than copying from one petition to another. The record lacks evidence directly establishing how or why Petitioner came to select the evidence the Petition relies upon, and we decline to speculate. to support this point, for example, instances in the Petition that facially support a finding that the arguments presented in the Petition track the analysis in the Board’s prior institution decision. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the road-mapping concern is either not relevant or is less relevant when the earlier IPR was instituted. Reply 1–2; see also General Plastic, slip op. at 17–18 (explaining that factor 3 is directed to road-mapping concerns). This is not a multiple-bites-of-an-apple situation where the second bite is modified after the first bite fails. This factor weighs against discretionary denial or is neutral.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“The facts here are analogous to those of Hulu, LLC. The Bogner reference provides the indicia at bottom left corner of its first page. Ex. 1007, 143. The indicia states: “Part of the SPIE Conference on Light- Emitting Diodes Research, Manufacturing and Applications III • San Jose, California • January 1999 SPIE Vol 3621 • 0277-786X/99/$10.00.” Id. The January 1999 date being printed adjacent to the name of a particular conference and San Jose, California suggests that the paper was presented at the 1999 conference. The “99” within 0277-786X/99/$10,00 indicates a 1999 publication, and the “$10.00” suggests public availability at the price of ten dollars in 1999. The indicia also suggest that the paper was published by an established publisher—SPIE (the international society for optics and photonics). As further evidence, Petitioner includes in the record a page from the SPIE website that appears to be from October 12, 2022. Ex. 1007, 1. The page indicates Bogner was published “14 April 1999” in “SPIE Proceedings Vol. 3621.” Id.10 This information is consistent with the indicia on the first page of the paper itself. The evidence, in total, supports Petitioner’s contention that the paper was presented at a conference in January 1999 and then published within SPIE Proceedings Volume 3621 in April 1999–– absent contrary evidence, which Patent Owner does not advance at this stage of the proceeding. As in Hulu, LLC, the Bogner reference’s indicia provide some evidence of printed publication status. The page from the SPIE website provides further evidence. Thus, given the record as a whole, which contains some evidence that Bogner was a printed publication as of 1999 and no evidence to the contrary, and in view of the Hulu LLC precedent, we determine that Petitioner has established at this stage of the proceeding a reasonable likelihood that the Bogner reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date11 of the challenged patent.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 14, 2023 · IPR2023-00105 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any claim unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’013 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’013 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’013 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“understand the claim term “a support pattern, provided on the second surface” recited in all challenged independent claims to mean a “support section that is part of a wiring pattern formed on the substrate’s second surface.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119–121, 133–134). At this time, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a support pattern, provided on the second surface.” See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe this term because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. 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 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“As discussed above in Section II.C, under the heading “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION,” the ’013 patent states that “[t]he object of the present invention is to provide a wiring substrate, a semiconductor device, and a package stack semiconductor device, all with improved reliability of connection by suppressing occurrence of inadequate electrical connection.” Ex. 1001, 3:60–64 (emphases added). The ’013 patent further states that A wiring substrate of the present invention, in order to achieve the foregoing object, includes an insulating substrate, a terminal section for wire bonding or flip-chip connection and a support pattern, provided on a surface of the other side of the surface where the terminal section is provided, and on a position corresponding to the terminal section, for improving reliability of connection of wire bonding. Therefore, this structure can suppress deformation of the insulating substrate by the support pattern, even when the terminal section is pressed in wire bonding or other connection methods. As a result, reliability of connection in wire bonding or other connection methods, can be improved than conventionally. Id. at 3:65–4:11 (emphases added). In view of these disclosures in the Specification and the express recitation “for improving wire bonding connection” in the claim, we determine that the limitation reciting “support pattern . . . for improving wire bonding connection” requires the recited “support pattern” to be capable of “improving wire bonding connection.” See GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“When a patent . . . describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.” (quoting Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007))); see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Statements that describe the invention as a whole are more likely to be found in certain sections of the specification, such as the Summary of the Invention.”).” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,731,013 - Infineon Technologies AG v. Feinics Amatech TeorantaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00235 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 over Takeda-322 under §§ 102 and 103, claims 1–6 over Murayama under § 102, and claim 7 over Murayama under §§ 102 and 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentDecided for patent owner
“Under the circumstances of this case, we do not agree that adverse judgment with respect to the disclaimed claims is appropriate. Our Rules, provide that a party may request judgment against itself. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner is not requesting adverse judgment against itself. While it is true that 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) provides that “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . (2) [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” (emphasis added), we decline to construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer as a request for adverse judgment in this proceeding because Patent Owner does not disclaim all challenged claims and the majority of the challenged claims remain in this trial.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). Petitioner points out that “the claims are not limited to a [Booster Antenna (BA)] operating at any particular frequency range.” Reply 25. In addition, Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 2005, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill should be narrowly confined to developing antenna for RFID devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1– 2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Pet. 87.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, because he “he lacks relevant experience, his testimony runs counter to fundamental principles of the RFID technology disclosed in the ’932 patent, and his testimony evidences a lack of candor.” PO Resp. 46. According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Moreover, Petitioner presents evidence that Dr. Van der Weide’s experience exceeds even Patent 7 We further note that our final determination, on the merits, would be the same even under Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 25–27. Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7; Ex. 1004 (van der Weide curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that “[n]o claim term requires an exact outer boundary construction, because the prior art relied upon herein meets the claim terms under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner proposes constructions for the claim terms “booster antenna,” “card antenna component,” “coupler coil component,” and “extension antenna component.” PO Resp. 25–45. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner also has proposed its own constructions for these terms, despite stating that no claim term requires construction. Id. at 25–26. We address “booster antenna” and “extension antenna” below.8 It is unnecessary to construe “card antenna component” or “coupler coil component” in this Decision 8 Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner belated construes “card body” in Petitioner’s Reply. Sur-Reply 16–18. We do not construe “card body” because this construction is not necessary to resolve this matter. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of either term. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 9,195,932 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,195,932
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.