• Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01541 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 of the ’951 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2

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

    “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party asserts that any claim terms of the ’951 patent require construction. See Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 18–19. And, upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms require construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “arrangement,” allowing for an increased density of dots to be formed on the recording paper. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 10–12, 17. One aspect of the “ink ejection parts” is the row of nozzles 22. Id. ¶¶ 17–18, 43, Fig. 1. In light of these disclosures, Mr. Curley testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the nozzles of Hamafuku are arranged in a row at “high density,” which was considered to be 600 dpi or higher in the relevant time period. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 321–323. We find this testimony sufficient to present, at a minimum, a material issue of fact as to whether Hamafuku teaches or suggests nozzles that are spaced apart with a pitch ranging from about 600 to about 2400 dpi, as recited in claim 1. declaration are not persuasive. The Petition clearly details why Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Hamafuku to teach or suggest a nozzle pitch of between about 600 and 2400 dpi. Pet. 67– 69. The Petition supports this conclusion with citation to prior art references and Mr. Curley’s declaration testimony. Id. In his declaration, Mr. Curley supports his conclusions with respect to the “high density” disclosure of Hamafuku with specific references to the same prior art disclosures that are cited in the Petition. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 318–323; Pet. 68 (both citing to disclosures in Exhibit 1008 and Exhibit 1025). We find this approach is appropriate. As noted by Patent Owner, Mr. Curley’s declaration spans over two hundred pages and contains a more extensive discussion of the prior art and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant time period. A declaration containing an in-depth discussion of the background of the relevant art, as well as a more complete analysis of the relevant prior art disclosures, is often more persuasive than a declaration that merely parrots the Petition, or vice versa, as it not only assists the panel in understanding the relevant technology, but also tends to demonstrate the declarant’s knowledge in the relevant field and his or her depth of analysis pertaining to the issues at hand. Of course, this extended analysis may not be incorporated-by-reference wholesale into a petition, but we discern no attempt to do so here, at least with respect to the nozzle pitch limitation disputed by the parties at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,152,951
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01575 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Saito and Catalano, Saito and Wojnarowski, and those combinations with Johnson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’551 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design, or a related field.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20). For purposes of this proceeding, “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 9. Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the prior art of record, and the ’551 patent, adopt Petitioner’s undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 6

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In IPR2021-01367, which also is directed to the ’551 patent, the Board construed the term “driver” to mean “a program, circuitry, or device used to power other programs, circuits, or devices.” Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc., IPR2021-01367, Paper 8 at 11–14 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2023) (Institution Decision); see also IPR2021-01367, Paper 46 at 7 (Final Written Decision). Patent Owner believes that this construction is broader than that used by the ’551 patent, “but will nevertheless refer to this construction because it is helpful in resolving the disputes over the teachings of the prior art, because none of the prior art teaches or suggests a driver even under this broader construction.” PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner does not propose an alternative construction of the claim term. Id. Petitioner does not contest the adopted construction of “driver.” Pet. Reply 1. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons expressly set forth in IPR2021-01367, we construe “driver” to mean “a program, circuitry, or device used to power other programs, circuits, or devices.” No other claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date awardedDecided for petitioner

    “connector” to describe the 3-pin connector of Catalano was potentially ambiguous. Based on the full trial record, we are persuaded that the citations provided in the Petition provide sufficient evidence that the ’495 Provisional provides written description support for claim 23 of Catalano.11 In response to Patent Owner’s argument that Catalano’s 3-pin connector 612 is connected to bulb base 616, and there is no evidence that such a connector is used in “a conventional incandescent bulb” (Sur-Reply 9), we find that regardless of the internal components connecting the “standard bulb base” to the LED circuit, the “standard bulb base” is a connector that can fit within “standard bulb sockets” and allow the device to replace a conventional incandescent bulb. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 5–7. Therefore, it is “a standard bulb power connector equivalent to the power connector of a” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Upon review of the record and the parties’ arguments as a whole, we agree with Petitioner that Saito discloses a driver, as that term is used in claim 1 of the ’551 patent. First, our construction of “driver” is broad, constituting any “program, circuitry, or device used to power other programs, circuits, or devices.” And, consistent with the structure of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, this construction does not require that the identified circuit or device actually generate power, only provide power to another device or circuit. switch that turns on or off a power source. Rather, the circuit of Saito monitors the voltage provided at both node A 107 and node B 715 and, depending on the reported voltages, switches between voltage sources to provide power to the LEDs. In this way, the voltage applied to the LED circuit is maintained within a range of roughly 16 and 30 Volts, and the LEDs are driven for a prolonged period of time by capacitors 106 and 107, which Saito explains “cut[s] down the consumption of electric current” and results in more efficient use of power. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 98–103. We find persuasive Dr. Baker’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a circuit to be a “driver,” as recited in claims 1 and 5 of the ’551 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94–95, 110–111.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,154,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,154,551
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00098 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable because the driver was not shown configured to receive the rectifier’s forward voltages.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience in LED devices. For this reason, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the level of skill reflected in the ’149 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Upon review of the entire record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Ducharme’s testimony that “the spacing of the chips in Zhang would not likely be so close as to create overheating issues” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 111) is unsupported by any disclosure of the actual spacing of Zhang’s chips. Consequently, his testimony that there would be no overheating concerns in Zhang due to the spacing of the chips is entitled to little, if any, weight. Dr. Ducharme further testifies that the components of Zhang’s driver “could easily increase the temperature of the LED 19 chips on the circuit board, which can cause LEDs to generate less illumination, burn out and otherwise adversely affect their performance.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 126. Dr. Ducharme further testifies that “[i]t is well-known that excessive operational temperatures can reduce the illumination provided by the LEDs, can decrease the operational lifetime of the LEDs, and if the temperature is sufficiently high, it can cause LED junction failure and a burnt-out LED.” Id. We agree with this testimony, which as discussed below, is consistent with Salam. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony concerning overheating issues caused by the driver components contradicts Patent Owner’s ’s contention that there would not be “an overheating issue with Zhang’s LED exit sign circuit in Figure 2.1.” PO Resp. 30. Regardless of whether Zhang’s LEDs in Figure 2.1 have a heat problem or not, Salam teaches the advantages of using a heat sink. Salam teaches that a heat sink will result in a higher efficiency of the LEDs and improved life. Ex. 1006, 16:38–43. The Federal Circuit, in DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal–and even common-sensical . . . the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses the knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” Id. at 1368. Dr. Ducharme testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have an understanding of the generation of heat and using a heat sink to remove unwanted heat from electronics and LED lighting devices.” Ex. 1102, 23:18–24:3. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony is consistent with Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Zhang and Salam “would have been a straightforward combination of known components and technologies, according to known methods, to produce the predictable result of reducing/ mitigating heat effects in a circuit.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106). Patent Owner next contends it would be extremely burdensome and costly to modify Zhang to add a heat sink layer because “each of the multiple chips mounted and epoxied to Zhang’s circuit board in the exit sign would have to be modified.” PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 112). Dr. Ducharme’s testimony repeats the Patent Owner Response verbatim and is entitled to little, if any, weight. Ex. 2002 ¶ 112. Nonetheless, this contention is unavailing because it is based on Patent Owner’s bodily incorporation of Zhang and Salam. Patent Owner next contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 27

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

    “Regardless of whether Zhang’s LEDs in Figure 2.1 have a heat problem or not, Salam teaches the advantages of using a heat sink. Salam teaches that a heat sink will result in a higher efficiency of the LEDs and improved life. Ex. 1006, 16:38–43. The Federal Circuit, in DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal–and even common-sensical . . . the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses the knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” Id. at 1368. Dr. Ducharme testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have an understanding of the generation of heat and using a heat sink to remove unwanted heat from electronics and LED lighting devices.” Ex. 1102, 23:18–24:3. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony is consistent with Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Zhang and Salam “would have been a straightforward combination of known components and technologies, according to known methods, to produce the predictable result of reducing/ mitigating heat effects in a circuit.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,149 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,149
• Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00023 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4 are unpatentable over the stated § 103 combinations; Petitioner did not show claim 2 unpatentable because it did not explain how the LED array’s forward voltage is received by the driver.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of experience in the field of design and/or development of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and circuits in the context of lighting control systems.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Petitioner further contends that “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id. at 12. Patent Owner proposes the same level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 6. We apply the parties’ undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the level of skill reflected in the ’149 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Dr. Lebby’s testimony over Dr. Ducharme for the following reasons. First, in Deese, power cable 28 is inserted into an opening in rubber housing 21. Ex. 1008, Fig. 2A. [R]ubber housing 21 forms a water-tight seal around the power cable 28.” Id. at 4:63–65. Dr. Ducharme does not explain why Hochstein’s protruding heat sink shell could not similarly be inserted through rubber housing 21 with a water-tight seal. Further, Dr. Lebby relies on the similarity between the structures of Deese and Hochstein. Hochstein uses gasket 45 and weather seal 48 to seal housing 10 with electrical lead 49 and heat sink shell 38 extending therethrough. Ex. 1010, 5: 39–40, 5:63:65, Fig. 8.” slip op. at 47

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther

    “Our analysis starts with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “a driver, wherein the driver includes at least one transistor and at least one capacitor” and “the driver is configured to receive an AC voltage from a mains power source and provide a voltage and current to the at least one LED circuit.” Ex. 1001, 23:16–17, 26:22–24. Dr. Ducharme testifies that power is determined by multiplying voltage and current. Ex. 2008 ¶ 63. The language of claim 1, thus, supports Patent Owner’s construction which is also consistent with the dictionary definition offered by Petitioner which also defines “driver” as [a] program, circuit or device used to power or control other programs, circuits or devices.” Ex. 1007, 4 (emphasis added). The Specification provides “the driver providing an AC voltage and current to one or more LED circuits.” Ex. 1001, 3:65–67. Thus, the Specification also provides support for Patent Owner’s construction. For the foregoing reasons, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “driver” because it is consistent with the language of claim 1 and the description of driver in the Specification. We note that the adjective “LED” prior to circuits or devices in Patent Owner’s construction is not necessary because that it essentially repeats limitation 1.e.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We begin with the claim language itself which is “the package is a heat sinking reflective material.” Ex. 1001, 23:18–19 (emphasis added). In its analysis, Patent Owner parses “heat sinking reflective material” out of context by omitting the italicized language “the package is” preceding “heat sinking reflective material.” PO Resp. 29. The deposition testimony of Dr. Lebby and Dr. Ducharme’s declaration testimony cited by Patent Owner are also out of context. The Specification of the ’149 patent defines “package” as an integrated unit that “in certain applications may preferably include a heat sink, a reflective material, a lens for directing light, phosphor nano-crystals or light changing or enhancing substances.” Ex. 1001, 5:30–33. Because heat sink and reflective material are listed separately in the Specification, this disclosure suggests that, at least in certain embodiments, a package with a heat sink separate from a reflective material would fall within the scope of limitation 1.c. This is further confirmed by comparing the packages illustrated in Figures 25 and 26 of the ’149 patent which are reproduced above. Figure 25 is described as illustrating “heat sinking material 198 . . . integrated into the package 30.” Id. at 17:34–35. Figure 26 is described as illustrating reflector 202 “integrated into the package 30 for optimized light dispersion.” Id. at 17:47–49. As can be seen from a visual comparison of Figures 25 and 26, reflector 202 is separate from heat sinking material 198. Given the disclosure in the ’149 patent of a package with a heat sink” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,149 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,149
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2021-01541 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–13, 15–17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over the cited combinations of Dowling, Mueller, Okuno, Nortrup, Yan, and Martin.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1– 4, 6–8, 11–13, 15–17, and 19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits in the context of lighting control systems. An increase in experience could compensate for less education. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 14. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’001 patent and prior art of record. We therefore adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Under the correct claim construction, Dowling discloses this limitation because Dowling discloses several examples of two-way switch 190 turning on or off LED circuits, independent of other LED circuits. For example, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that Dowling’s color wash mode (selected by switch 190) discloses this limitation by referring to LEDs that “cycle . . . through the full color spectrum,” turning different colored LEDs on or off. Ex. 1033 ¶ 26 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 44, 103 (“If two LEDs were used . . . with circuitry to turn each color on or off, four colors could be produced.”) (emphasis added)). As another example, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that switch 190 can be used to select a “static color mode to produce, for example, the color red, then only the red LED will be turned on and the remaining LEDs will be turned off.” Id. ¶ 28 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 103). Finally, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that switch 190 can select a strobing mode to cause LEDs to “alternate[] green and red,” which a POSITA would have understood to cause “at least one color LED circuit to be turned on or off independent of other LED circuits.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not rebut these assertions of Dr. Neikirk. See Sur- reply 7–10. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established that Dowling discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 26

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

    “We begin our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 requires a switch to “independently switch on or off at least one of the first LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit.” There is no express requirement in the claim that any switching occur independently “of other switches.” In effect, Patent Owner appears to imply that “independently” modifies only the word “switch.” Yet the plain reading of this phrase is that the word “independently” modifies the entire phrase that follows—“switch on or off at least one of the first LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit.” As such, the plain language of the claim encompasses switching one of the LED circuits on or off independently of another LED circuit. In other words, the switch can turn on or off either LED circuit by itself, without affecting the other LED circuit. Patent Owner even appears to have had the same understanding pre-institution, arguing that one of Dowling’s modes “is simultaneously controlling all the LEDs, not independently switching one LED circuit on or off.” Prelim. Resp. 19. The specification does not inform the meaning of this limitation because it does not include the word “independently”—this term only appears in the claims. And Patent Owner points us to no discussion of independent switching in the specification by another name. At most, Patent Owner refers to two separate claims and a few specification references that possibly mention two separate switches. Sur-reply 3–4. But Patent Owner’s references to claims 11 and 15 are unavailing, as even if claims 11 and 15 mention different switches, Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain how this compels the meaning it ascribes to “independently switch.” This is true even though claim 11 itself recites a similar “independently switch” limitation. Further, the specification’s mere mention of different switches is also insufficient to draw any conclusion about whether those switches are independently switched from one another. We therefore find no disavowal, lexicography, or any context that would counsel departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of this limitation. As such, we construe “a switch . . . configured to at least one of independently switch on or off at least one of the first LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit” in claims 1, 6, and 11 to encompass a switch that switches an LED circuit on or off independently of another LED circuit.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,537,001 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,537,001
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01576 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 13–18 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations fail to teach or suggest multiple LED packages connected in series.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–42). Patent Owner argues that its definition is superior because Petitioner’s “and/or” qualifier “might be read as considering a person who has ‘related circuit design’ experience but no experience with ‘LED devices’ to be a POSITA.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner further views Petitioner’s “or a related field” phrasing as potentially including a person who has no experience with LED devices. Id. We agree with Patent Owner on both points. We agree with Patent Owner that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’979 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill but note that had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill, we would not have reached a different outcome here.” slip op. at 6

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

    “specification support its construction of “formed or mounted to” as encompassing indirect attachment to the substrate. Neither the plain claim language nor the specification requires the phosphor coating to be directly attached to the substrate. Limitation 1(c) recites, wherein the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating to produce a change in a color or a quality of light emitted from the LED chips, wherein the LED chips, the power connection leads, and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to a flexible substrate that is sufficiently flexible to be formed into a cylindrical shape[.] Ex. 1001, 22:7–12 (emphasis added). The claim is inartfully written, as it requires the LEDs to comprise a phosphor coating but then separately recites that the LED chips and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to the substrate. But Petitioner correctly explains that the plain meaning requires that “the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating” and that “the [same] phosphor coating” (included in the LED chips) is “formed or mounted to a flexible substrate.” Reply 2. In other words, the use of the term “the” before “phosphor coating” indicates reliance on the antecedent basis of “LED chips comprise a phosphor coating,” and thus the same coating of the LED chips is formed or mounted to the substrate. Logically, by including a phosphor coating with the LED chips, which are formed or mounted to the substrate, the coating of these chips is also indirectly formed or mounted to the substrate. Conversely, it would be illogical to conclude that the claim recites two phosphor coatings, one attached to the LED chips and another attached directly to the substrate, because the structure of the claim refers to a single phosphor coating of the LED chips. Even Patent Owner concedes that the claim encompasses the phosphor coating indirectly being mounted or attached to the substrate (in addition to being directly attached). PO Resp. 11 (“The ordinary English reading of the claim language does not encompass the phosphor coating only being indirectly attached to the substrate, instead, the language indicates that the coating is directly applied to the substrate.” (emphasis changed)), 13 (“the phosphor coating . . . is not merely attached to the substrate indirectly”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “After considering Patent Owner’s arguments, which we address below, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Wojnarowski and Martin discloses this limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner. Briefly, we summarize our findings, and then we address the parties’ arguments in more detail. First, we agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Wojnarowski’s AC input voltage would have been converted to DC voltage in light of the bridge rectifier and capacitor disclosed by Wojnarowski. Pet. 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119– 20 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 7:59–62, Fig. 24); PO Resp. 35–36 (acknowledging Wojnarowski discloses converting an AC input to a DC voltage). Second, we further agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that excessive current due to too few LEDs would have harmed Wojnarowski’s LEDs, and too small a current due to too many LEDs would be insufficient to power Wojnarowski’s LEDs. Pet. 26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134; PO Resp. 48 (discussing, but not disputing, these assertions).13 Third, we agree that a POSITA would have recognized in view of Martin’s teachings and the knowledge of a skilled artisan that when configuring Wojnarowski’s device, the total forward voltage drop of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the DC voltage output 13 Petitioner explains the relationship between voltage and current for the LEDs as follows: “the total voltage drop of the circuit would dictate the current drawn by the LED circuitry, which would have been known to be inversely proportional to the voltage.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). of Wojnarowski’s circuit. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 132–38; Ex. 1008, Abstract (LED voltage “must be matched to the input source voltage”), ¶ 60 (“For AC or any other regularly varying input voltage, there is an additional requirement to direct drive voltage matching”)). For example, Martin teaches that “[t]he number of LEDs in the monolithic array may be selected to achieve a particular voltage drop across each device.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 22. Martin further explains, “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series,” and “[t]he number of LEDs is chosen such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED during the peak in the alternating current cycle is low enough so as not to damage the LEDs.” Id. The forward voltage drop across Martin’s 38 LEDs is about 171 V, which matches Martin’s AC input voltage peak of about 169.71 V. See id. (“At 120 RMS volts, the peak voltage will be about 180V [correction: 169.71 V],” and if the LEDs “can tolerate a maximum forward voltage of 4.5V, at least 38 LEDs connected in series are required.” (38 LEDs x 4.5 V = 171 V)); PO Resp. 41–42 (“While Martin references ‘about 180V,’ both parties agree that the correct value of the peak voltage Vp is 169.71 V.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 127)). Although Martin’s LED forward voltage drop (171 V) differs slightly from the peak input voltage (169.71 V), Patent Owner conceded at the hearing that the claimed “matches” does not require an exact equivalence. Tr. 38:9–11 (“Patent Owner agrees . . . that matching has a meaning that goes beyond exact equivalence.”).14” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “35 U.S.C. § 311(b). PO Resp. 22–25. This statute provides that “[a] petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” § 311(b) (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends that Martin is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) because it is not a patent or printed publication and is only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that documents are “printed publications” as of the date they become available to the public, and Martin became public on its publication date of October 21, 2004, after the February 25, 2004 priority date of the ’979 patent. Id. at 23. Patent Owner raises a similar argument for the Soules-II reference in Ground 6. Id. at 25– 26. Petitioner responds that the AIA framework permits the use of § 102(e) prior art in IPR proceedings, unlike formerly available covered business method review (CBM) proceedings, which restricted challenges to § 102(a) prior art. Reply 29. We agree. The statute governing the formerlyavailable CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) more broadly permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The broader language in § 311(b) implies that unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to challenges solely under § 102(a) prior art. The parties cite to no Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit has applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in appeals from IPR proceedings. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication was available as prior art in an IPR). The Board has also long permitted challenges based on patent application publications under § 102(e). See, e.g., Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 14 at 27 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) (instituting trial over § 102(e) ground based on a patent application publication). We therefore find Patent Owner’s § 311(b) argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,652,979 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,652,979
• Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2023 · IPR2021-01540 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 33, 34, 38, 39, and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over Teshima and SISE, or over Teshima, Butterworth, and SISE.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits in the context of lighting control and networking systems. An increase in experience could compensate for less education. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Patent Owner states that it “adopts this definition of level of ordinary skill for purposes of this proceeding only.” PO Resp. 5. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’842 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We determine that no other terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments more persuasive. As a threshold matter, we disagree with Patent Owner that “coated” requires a “thin layer.” We note that Patent Owner did not construe “coated” in its Patent Owner Response, relying only on a single citation to its expert declaration for the proposition that “coated” refers to a “thin layer.” PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 80). There, Dr. Bretschneider merely cites a dictionary definition without analysis or discussion in support of his testimony that “[c]oating an LED is adding a thin layer or covering to something.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 79. When questioned about this, he testified, “I didn’t equate that [statement in the declaration] to an opinion equivalent to claim construction.” Ex. 1038, 132:2–14. Patent Owner also does not discuss the intrinsic record in support of its implicit claim construction position. Based on our review of the intrinsic record, we can find no special definition or disavowal associated with the term “coated.” We also find Patent Owner’s dictionary definition unhelpful, as the meaning of “thin” layer is unclear. See Ex. 2007 ¶ 79. Moreover, Leung refers to “coating an LED with a phosphor layer” and that “it is often difficult to control the phosphor layer’s geometry and thickness,” which undercuts Patent Owner’s position that a coated layer must be thin. See Ex. 1037 ¶ 8.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that SISE is analogous art to the ’842 patent. The field of endeavor of the ’842 patent is LED lighting systems. The ’842 patent explains that “LED based lighting may be used for general lighting, specialty lighting, signs, and decoration such as for Christmas tree lighting.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:2; see also id. at code (54) (“AC Light Emitting Diode and AC LED Drive Methods and Apparatus”). This is a broad field of endeavor, and we discern no relevant distinction between LED lighting systems that are used to illuminate an area or object and those used to signal information, such as traffic signals. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments here are inconsistent with its arguments in a related proceeding, IPR2021-01369. There, Patent Owner argued that the field of endeavor in a continuation patent of the ’842 patent was “LED lighting systems.” Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc., IPR2021-01369, Paper 45 at 17 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2023). Here, Patent Owner contends that the ’842 patent’s field of endeavor is “LED lighting systems and specifically circuits for driving LED lighting systems.” PO Resp. 42. As both patents share a common specification and Patent Owner does not explain why it proposes a different field of endeavor, we determine that the field of endeavor here is also “LED lighting systems.”” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,091,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,091,842
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01346 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3–16 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over the seven combinations of prior art listed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “These definitions are very similar, but we are persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’466 patent and prior art of record. Petitioner’s use of the term “and/or” is problematic because it makes experience with LED devices optional. In contrast, Patent Owner’s definition requires two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill. Had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill, however, the outcome here would not have changed.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Neither party proposes any claim constructions. Pet. 6; PO Resp. 8–9; Reply 1. We determine that no terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner indeed relies on an improper bodily incorporation argument. Petitioner does not propose bodily incorporating Siwinski and Srivastava together, but rather taking certain teachings from these references and applying them to Hack. Reply 11, 14. For example, Petitioner argues that a POSITA would have relied on Siwinski’s teachings “to configure Hack’s device to implement a circuit configured to detect touch via capacitive sensing.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 124). And Petitioner relies on Srivastava for the teaching that a POSITA would have configured Hack’s device with a lens doped with particles configured to receive and transmit light from a plurality of LEDs. Id. at 29– 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–32). Patent Owner’s argument that Srivastava’s shell is not combinable with Siwinski’s touch screen misdirects our attention to a combination that Petitioner did not propose, and is a bodily incorporation that fundamentally misapplies the law of obviousness. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Regardless, Petitioner’s arguments are not conclusory. The Reply persuasively argues that “Srivastava’s express applicability to OLEDs and display backlights is consistent with Hack’s OLED backlight features.” Reply 11 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1052, 1:10–12, 5:29–38). We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence supporting that “the use of a lens with LED backlight configurations was known,” which undercuts Mr. Credelle’s testimony that Srivastava’s lens would be incompatible with a touch screen backlight. Id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1090 (depicting a lens over multiple OLED color elements), Fig. 13; Ex. 1098, code (57) (“display back lighting system” with an “entrance lens” and a “reflecting lens”); Ex. 1099, code (57) (“backlight assembly” with “a closely packed array of hemispherical or spherical lenses”)); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 96–97. And contrary to Mr. Credelle’s testimony that “[i]t would be illogical to form Srivastava’s shell over Siwinski’s touch screen because the shell would prevent touching the touch screen, which is the function of the touch screen,” Petitioner persuasively argues that “Srivastava explains that it was known that LEDs are used as a backlight in liquid crystal displays.” Reply 11. In other words, Petitioner’s reliance on Srivastava’s backlight teachings would not prevent a user from touching a screen (in front of the backlight) in the modified device. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hack, Siwinski, and Srivastava to achieve this limitation.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “We start our analysis with the Sur-reply because it exposes several weaknesses in Patent Owner’s arguments. First, contrary to what the Sur-reply contends, the Patent Owner response did not argue that “Srivastava’s LED shell is incompatible with Hack’s touch screen because the hard shell would interfere with the functionality of the touchscreen.” Id. This is a new argument first made in the Sur-reply, and we do not consider it. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). What Patent Owner actually argued in its Response was that “[a] POSITA would not combine Srivastava’s LED shell for a single LED with Hack’s flexible display.” PO Resp. 24. There is no mention of a “hard shell” interfering with the functionality of the touch screen in the Patent Owner Response. See id. At most, Patent Owner contends that the shell would “prevent touching the screen,” and that the “curvature of the shell” would be incompatible, not that any hardness of the shell would present a problem. Id. at 25–26 (quoting Ex. 2001 ¶ 97). Regardless, even if we consider this argument, it is inapposite because as the Reply correctly notes, “Srivastava explains that it was known that LEDs are used as a backlight in liquid crystal displays,” and we accordingly find that a backlight with a hard shell would not interfere with a user touching a display. See Reply 11 (citing Pet. 30–33; Ex. 1052, 1:10–12).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,499,466 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,499,466
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01345 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 9–11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Hack and Garcia, Hack, Garcia, and Cordelli, or Hack and Porter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would mean someone who, at the time of the invention in February 2004, had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–48). Petitioner contends that there is little difference between these definitions and that Patent Owner does not tie any of its arguments to the minor differences. Reply 1–2. We agree. However, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill because we are persuaded that it is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’252 patent and prior art of record, except that we delete the phrase “or more” to avoid including ambiguity in the definition of the level of skill. The outcome of this decision would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Because the intrinsic record7 does not assist us with interpreting the term “folded,” we turn to the extrinsic evidence, including Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary definitions and expert testimony. As mentioned above, Patent Owner supplied two dictionary definitions for “fold.” See Exs. 2006, 2007. But these definitions are from non-technical sources and are non-contemporaneous with the ’252 patent’s priority date, and are thus of limited relevance to our analysis. Reply 14 n.7. As for expert testimony, Patent Owner’s expert submits that “[a] POSITA would understand that folding a substrate requires bending the substrate so that one part of the substrate is in full contact with another part of the substrate.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 81. However, Patent Owner’s expert provides no evidence or explanation for this conclusory assertion, so we give it little weight. See id.; PO Resp. 18–19; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Further, as we will discuss in detail below, the prior art upon which 7 The parties do not address the prosecution history. Petitioner relies explicitly discloses a substrate that is flexible enough to be folded. See, e.g., Pet. 40; Ex. 1005 ¶ 76 (“[T]he display 106 could be thin and flexible enough to . . . fold into a housing 102[.]”). Thus, apart from explaining the errors in Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we determine that it is unnecessary for us to further analyze the proper scope of this term. 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 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Because the intrinsic record7 does not assist us with interpreting the term “folded,” we turn to the extrinsic evidence, including Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary definitions and expert testimony. As mentioned above, Patent Owner supplied two dictionary definitions for “fold.” See Exs. 2006, 2007. But these definitions are from non-technical sources and are non-contemporaneous with the ’252 patent’s priority date, and are thus of limited relevance to our analysis. Reply 14 n.7. As for expert testimony, Patent Owner’s expert submits that “[a] POSITA would understand that folding a substrate requires bending the substrate so that one part of the substrate is in full contact with another part of the substrate.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 81. However, Patent Owner’s expert provides no evidence or explanation for this conclusory assertion, so we give it little weight. See id.; PO Resp. 18–19; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Garbuzov discloses stacked LEDs, with a coating on one of those LEDs, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, which we discuss in detail below. To briefly summarize, first, we agree with Petitioner (and Patent Owner does not dispute) that Figure 39 (above) of the ’252 patent depicts an OLED. Second, we agree that each of the sets of layers Petitioner identifies in Garbuzov as an OLED has a similar structure as the OLED in Figure 39 of the ’252 patent, and is therefore an OLED. See, e.g., Ex. 1089, 48:3–6. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the phosphor layer 114 is applied to one of Garbuzov’s OLEDs within the stacked set of OLEDs, as shown in Garbuzov Figure 2, and therefore, that Garbuzov discloses coating an LED with a phosphor. Finally, we agree with Petitioner that phosphor layer 114 produces a change in color because Garbuzov describes phosphor layer 114 as “red downconversion phosphor layer 114.” See Ex. 1016, 3:32–33.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,252 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,252
• Eve Energy Co., Ltd. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01487 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 9–16 were obvious over either asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “crimping or beading-over process of closing a battery casing, Petitioner offers only attorney argument for the proposition that such a process creates a battery casing that is “held together by a force-fitting connection.” Id. But “[a]ttorney argument is not evidence.” Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “27–28. Patent Owner responds that no term requires construction at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 20. For the reasons discussed below, we are able to determine whether to institute trial without construing “insulating means,” so we do not construe this term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we 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 9

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 9,799,913

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.