• Commscope Technologies LLC v. Belden Canada UlcInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01227 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all grounds for claims 1–5 and 8–13, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 8 is anticipated by Fukui and claims 1 and 8 are obvious over Fukui-based grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been unpatentable over the proposed prior art. We analyze the asserted grounds with the above-noted principles in mind.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “Patent Owner contends that we should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) “because the Petition presents ‘the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously . . . presented to the Office.’” Prelim. Resp. 25–31 (alteration in original). Specifically, Patent Owner explains, the Office previously considered Sedor during the ’542 patent’s prosecution, and Sauter was made of record but not considered during prosecution. Id. Patent Owner, however, states that it “recognizes that this argument only reaches Sauter-based grounds, not Fukui-based grounds. This argument thus only needs to be addressed after the Board confirms the fundamental deficiencies in Petitioner’s Fukui-based grounds.” Id. at 25 n.3. Because, as set forth below, we do not, on the present record, find any “fundamental deficiencies in Petitioner’s Fukui-based grounds” that inhibit institution of trial, we regard Patent Owner’s § 325 request as moot, and we need not consider it further.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have [had] a B.S. degree or equivalent in mechanical or electrical engineering or similar fields, in addition to a minimum of two years of professional experience with or graduate studies involving design, development, and/or utilization of optical communication systems.” Pet. 26. On the present record, Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 1–31. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’542 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

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

    “enough to resolve . . . the lead Fukui ground” but that “[t]here are two disputes relevant to the alternative Sauter ground.” Pet. 22. With respect to the first of these “disputes,” Petitioner presents two claim constructions for the claim term or phrase “cassette width as measured between outer side edges thereof of one of one, two, three, four and six standard width units.” Id. at 23. The constructions are said to be from “the co-pending litigation,” with one characterized as “Patent Owner’s proposed construction”6 and the other as “CommScope’s proposed construction.”7 Of note is Petitioner’s 6 The claim construction attributed to Patent Owner is: “cassette width as measured between the outer side edges thereof that accommodates one of one, two, three, four, or six receptable modules.” Pet. 23. 7 Petitioner’s construction is: “The cassette width as measured between the outer side edges thereof equals one, two, three, four, or six times the contention that “[Patent Owner]’s construction cannot be correct,” and accompanying explanation in that respect. Id. at 22–23, 24. Patent Owner acknowledges that there is a dispute between the parties as to the noted claim construction but urges that “[t]he Board, however, need not fully resolve this claim construction dispute,” as, in Patent Owner’s view, the grounds based on Sauter are deficient based on either construction. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. We are mindful of Petitioner’s view that Patent Owner’s litigation construction is not correct. We also question whether that construction adds clarity in substituting “width that accommodates” for “width of,” and replacing “standard width units” with “receptable modules,” without, on this record, support for such word variations. Nevertheless, our determination whether to institute trial does not require resolution of any claim construction dispute, nor does it necessitate that we adopt any particular construction for the pertinent claim 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))). We invite the parties to develop the record more fully on this claim- construction issue during trial.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,435,542
• Elmos Semiconductor SE v. Texas Instruments IncorporatedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00802 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–20 would be unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “a person having ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) at the relevant time, would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent experience of at least two years working in the field of the design electrical driver systems for Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).” Pet. 20. Patent Owner has not addressed the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as articulated above. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ432 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases to reach our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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))). Petitioner’s constructions do not affect our determinations, and, even under Petitioner’s constructions, Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to its proposed grounds of unpatentability for the challenged claims of the ’432 Patent.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “First, even under Petitioner’s assertion that “controller RG . . . performs the functions of an error amplifier and amplifier output stage” (id. at 37), Petitioner has not adequately shown that controller RG meets all three of “an error amplifier,” “a control voltage,” and “an amplifier output stage.” Petitioner’s assertions that those elements are “interior to” or “include[d]” in controller RG are conclusory and unsupported. Petitioner summarizes and reproduces portions of Sudhaus regarding the output currents of controller RG, but has not explained the relevance of its summary and reproduction with respect to each recited claim element. See id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:32–33, 4:25–28, 4:46–50, 8:47–55), 40– 41. Nor has Petitioner explained why or how the summarized or reproduced portions of Sudhaus show that those claim elements are interior or included in controller RG. See id. Further, Petitioner also fails to show how Sudhaus teaches the claimed interactions and relations between the error amplifier, control voltage, and amplifier output stage. The claim recites the error amplifier compares voltages to “generate a control voltage” and the amplifier output stage controls output current “based on the control voltage.” Petitioner has not explained what specific signal controller RG generates that teaches a “control voltage” used to control output current. Nor has Petitioner stated, let alone explained how, controller RG generates a control voltage in the claimed manner and controls output current based on that control voltage. Simply because controller RG produces outputs that are allegedly similar to the claimed outputs does not by itself show that controller RG produces the claimed outputs using the claimed elements in the claimed manner.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,653,432
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00778 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim: Clark and Mills each failed to disclose required limitations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies New Balance’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’749 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our patentability evaluations below.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Technologies Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00665 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  Institution denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the proposed obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law A petition must show how the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level 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); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends the following assessment in connection with a person of ordinary skill in the art: The Challenged Claims pertain to a method of recovering geothermal heat. However, “[m]any of the techniques are derived from oil and gas industry.” EX1001 at 4:23-24. Accordingly, here, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a person with a Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, and/or Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering, Energy Resource Engineering, or the like, or at least five years of experience engineering, drilling, and constructing wells. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also have met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of a POSITA. For purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther

    “own for any claim term. Patent Owner does, however, note that “claim element 9c[13] includes the terms ‘means for,’ which are presumed to invoke 13 The referenced “claim element 9c” reads in-part “Means for producing a water density difference and a pressure difference between said first means-plus-function treatment under Section 112.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B Inc., IPR2022-01378, Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2023) (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part))). Patent Owner further submits that “[u]nder Rule 104(b)(3),[14] Petitioner had an obligation to provide a construction of claim element 9c that includes both the claimed function and the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” Id. We agree with Patent Owner that the term “means for” when appearing in a claim triggers a rebuttable presumption that treatment under § 112 applies. On the record before us, however, Petitioner has not explained why the noted presumption has been rebutted or does not apply, and has not provided a construction of the pertinent “means for” term in the Petition in contradiction to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 10

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

    “While it is certainly the case that “a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art,” see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is incumbent on a petitioner, in advancing a permissible theory of obviousness, to explain why a skilled artisan would recognize to pick and choose certain aspects of a reference and combine them with other aspects of the reference, particularly so where the reference itself does not suggest such combination. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests” ) (citation and inner quotes omitted). Here, Petitioner’s oscillation between different embodiments of Rinaldi in an attempt to reach the requirements of claim 1 is not adequately explained, and more closely resembles impermissible hindsight. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). In sum, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable as a part of Petitioner’s proposed Ground 1.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,320,221
• Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00460 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 and 12–18 are anticipated by Nishida.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination on the construction of any claim term or the patentability of any challenged claim V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’749 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 27

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “arguments that Nishida-US does not disclose the “simultaneously knitting” limitation of the claims of the ’749 patent constitutes “error.” Pet. 86. In our view, whether error or not, there is clear inconsistency on the record before us as to assessment of Nishida’s and Nishida-US’s teachings pertaining to the pertinent “simultaneously knitting” requirement. In that regard, as discussed above, in accounting for that requirement, the Petition unambiguously relies on disclosure in Nishida specifically stating that “when the strip of material (1) is manufactured, the patterns (2) of the uppers are produced, at the same time as the strip of material.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract (emphasis added by Petitioner)). At the very least, there is a reasonable case to be made that such disclosure conveys that the material (1) and the patterns (2) are created simultaneously. The record is devoid of any indication that the Examiner considered or apprehended the extent of that disclosure.15 “[M]isapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims,” as seemingly occurred here, does not lend itself to a conclusion that the exercise of discretion to deny institution is appropriate. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 n.9.” slip op. at 23

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “account for limitation 1[a], on this record, is difficult to follow. Nishida makes clear that its shoe making method involves production of material web 1 by knitting and which is “provided with a single or a plurality of unwound web part(s) 2.” Ex. 1005, 5. Nishida’s disclosure also, at this time, appears unequivocal in describing that “patterns (2)” and web material 1 (or “strip of material (1)”) are manufactured or produced “at the same time.” Id. at code (57) (Abstract). Nishida also unambiguously describes its material web 1 as including “surface areas 1.1.” Id. at 7. As is evident from, for instance, Nishida’s Figure 2, surface areas 1.1 surround unwound web parts (or patterns) 2.” slip op. at 18

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

    “2. Proposed Ground of Obviousness Based on Nishida (Grounds 2 and 6) Petitioner contends that claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on Nishida’s teachings taken with the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. Pet. 50–54. Petitioner supports its contention with citation to Dr. Brookstein’s testimony (Ex. 1003) as well as various record exhibits (e.g., Exs. 109, 1010, 1012, 1023). Id. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner recourse to a person of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge in accounting for claims 9, 10, 19, and 20. Rather, Patent Owner simply contends that the arguments it advanced in connection with Ground 1 also applies to Ground 2. As discussed above, at this time, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner also contends that claims 11 and 21 would have been unpatentable over Nishida and Zuckerman (Ground 6). Pet. 81–84. Patent Owner also contends that the arguments it advances in conjunction with Ground 1 apply to Ground 6. Prelim. Resp. 37. We do not find those arguments availing. On the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success in its patentability challenge to claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 based on Nishida (ground 2), and its challenge to claims 11 and 21 based on Nishida and Zuckerman (ground 6).” slip op. at 19

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Next Step Group, Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00525 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving the challenged design claim unpatentable on any of its ten asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). After considering the Parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the one claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “December 15, 2015”). The date that a product was listed as first available on a website, however, is not sufficient evidence that the content of the listing, including the photographs depicted therein, were published at that time. See Ex parte Basulto, Appeal 2020-00129, 2021 WL 1264902, at *2 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2021) (stating “the date [a] product was listed on Amazon.com is not compelling evidence that the content of [the] listing itself as shown in the document, and the photographs relied on within it were published at that time”). Selling products online is dynamic. Id. Product listings may be updated and photographs of the products may change. Id. While a statement on a commercial website as to when a product was “first available” might constitute evidence as to when the product was first offered for sale, such a statement is not sufficient evidence that the listing itself, or any photograph depicted therein, has not changed over time. See Ex parte Zhang, Appeal 2021-000087, 2021 WL 633718 at *3 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2021) (stating “while the [webpage] date indicates that the product information was last updated on [date], there is no additional evidence to corroborate that the picture was publicly accessible on that date”). We have also reviewed the customer reviews that Petitioner asserts show “the listing were [sic] public, printed publications.” Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1009, 6; Ex. 1015 ¶ 17–18. None of the reviews dated prior to the critical date of November 8, 2019, however, contain any images of the UGG Neumel Boot. See Ex. 1009, 6). Thus, Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence that any of the images on pages 1–9 of Exhibit 1009 were available on the website prior to the critical date.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Here, the pull-tab does serve a useful purpose as it can be used to pull the footwear onto the foot. Based on the evidence presented, however, we disagree with Petitioner that the pull tab is primarily functional and should be removed entirely from the construction of the claimed design. Petitioner presents a number of arguments to support its position that the pull tab is functional, not ornamental. Petitioner asserts that the pull tab is “obviously not ornamentation but instead is a functional element that is used to pull the footwear on to the foot, an important function and part of the Patent Owner’s marketing message.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 64–67; possible, the type of pull tab shown in the ’161 patent “is the kind that is generally used in shorter shaft, lower ankle height footwear to make it easier to pull up and put the boot on the foot.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1009, the UGG Neumel Boot). Petitioner further asserts that the pull tab is “securely attached for actual use, countering that it is ornamental” and that “[a]ny other pull tab (e.g., not at the top of the footwear as in the UGG Neumel Boot) would not be as efficient and hence not an acceptable alternative.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 64–67; Ex. 1013, 25–27). We are not persuaded by these arguments. The “marketing material” relied on by Petition, as discussed by Mr. Holden, merely states that Ultra Mini Ugg Boots “have a slightly lower ankle to make it easier for you to slip on,” that the UGG boots are “fantastic” for those who “may struggle with pulling on other styles,” and the boots “are fantastic for those who may struggle with pulling on other styles and are looking for more comfort and durability.” See Ex. 1011 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1003). None of the marketing material cited by Petitioner even mentions a pull tab. Nor does the present record support Petitioner’s contentions that,” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. First, the images of the Emu Stinger Micro Boot that Petitioner relies upon are from pages 1–6 of Exhibit 1002, which as noted above, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown to constitute a printed publication prior art. Thus, Petitioner’s arguments are based on images in a reference that does not qualify as prior art to the claimed design. The images found on pages 8 and 9 of Exhibit 1002 are not the same images as those relied upon in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1002, 8– 9, with Pet. 35–36. Thus, for at least this reason, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the ’161 patent is anticipated by the Emu Stinger Boot. Second, even if we were to consider any of these images of the Emu Stinger Micro Boot depicted in Exhibit 1002, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because the arguments fail to adequately address differences between the claimed design and the prior art as viewed by an ordinary observer. See Door-Master Corp., 256 F.3d at 1313 (stating for anticipation to be found, the claimed design and the prior art design must be substantially the same). For example, the Figures of the ’161 patent depict (1) a stitch pattern design that includes a wavy line on the back heel of the boot (see Figs. 1–3, 5), (2) a pull tab that extends over the top part of the back of the boot and opening for insertion of the foot that appears to constitute more than 50% of the length of the boot (Figs. 2, 3, 6), and (4) a backward sloping top line. Petitioner does not address the differences between (1) the stitch pattern (2) the pull tab, or (3) the size of the opening for the foot at all in its anticipation argument. See Pet. 35–38.” slip op. at 37

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
• Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 8, 2024 · IPR2023-00438 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 12–14, and 17–19 are unpatentable: Amano anticipates claims 1, 5, 7, 12, and 17, and Amano with Gorman or Flach renders the remaining claims obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) for the technology of the ’413 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in engineering, computer science, industrial design, biomechanics, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of experience researching, developing, designing, and/or testing fitness or physiological sensors, wearable devices, physiological or biomechanical devices, remotely-controlled systems or interfaces, network-based applications and/or equipment, or the equivalent experience or education.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Sur-reply 4–5; Ex. 1017, 73:13–22; Ex. 2013, 23:10–24:25,17 36:19–37:7. It, therefore, seems unnecessary in our view to contemplate claim constructions that substitute “takes into account” or “is adaptive to” for the actual claim language of “based on.” It is apparent from the record that has developed during trial that a core matter for resolution is whether an exertion level that is “based on” a level of a user’s physical fitness includes, at least in some fashion, a user’s physical characteristics or attributes as a part of assessing or understanding a level of a user’s physical fitness. From a general standpoint, it stands to reason that many of a person’s physical attributes, in at least some respect, do indeed provide for assessing the level of that person’s physical fitness. To be sure, we agree with Patent Owner that certain individual attributes, such as any of sex, age, height, weight, and stride length, taken alone cannot necessarily be “equated” with a user’s level of physical fitness or constitute such a level. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 3 (quoting Ex. 2012, 148:5-149:16). But, the record reasonably suggests that such attributes when considered in conjunction with one another can provide meaningful guidance or basis for assessing the level of a user’s physical fitness. For instance, Petitioner contends that “weight and height as expressed through BMI can estimate body composition” which is a “component of physical fitness.” Pet. Reply 2. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Lynch, testifies that body” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “those here including stride length and body weight, may be factored in as a part of an assessment of a person’s level of physical fitness. Although any one particular physical characteristic of a person may not be indicative of the person’s physical fitness, Amano provides that the interrelationship of at least a person’s stride length, initial pitch, and weight are associated with one another so as to establish that particular person’s exercise intensity. Amano also recognizes that there is a relationship between a person’s exercise intensity and heartbeat rate. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, Fig. 4, 4:6–7 (FIG. 4 is a diagram showing the relationship between exercise intensity and heartbeat rate.”). Patent Owner agrees that heart rate may factor into determining a person’s level of physical fitness. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 4 (“The specification explains that ‘heart rate’ and ‘breathing’ can be used to determine a user’s physical fitness.”). Amano’s teachings in employing a person’s particular physical characteristics, e.g., stride length and body weight, alongside a person’s pitch, i.e., steps per minute, in the process of determining exercise intensity, which is related to heartbeat rate, in our view, reasonably form a basis for assessment of a level of a person’s physical fitness. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 12:15–20.” slip op. at 28

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

    “teach what Petitioner contends they teach. Rather, the core dispute that emerges between the parties is whether those teachings that are applied to wireless devices would also be applicable to wired devices. At the outset, we note that neither the Specification nor the claims of the ’413 patent provides restriction as to any type of communication approach, i.e., wireless or wired communication, or that there is some type of fundamental distinction between those communication approaches that precludes combining aspects of one with the other. Indeed, as Petitioner notes, the ’413 patent recognizes that wireless interfaces are “alternative[s]” for wired interfaces. Pet. Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:27–32). And, Petitioner points out that the relevant dependent claims are not limited to wireless communication. Id. Patent Owner’s assertion that wired communication versus wireless communication imposes some type of insurmountable obstacle to one of ordinary skill in the art in combining the teachings of the references is not adequately, if at all, tethered to the record at hand. Indeed, Amano, itself, presents iterations of its device that employ both wired technology (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, Figs. 5, 16, 30, 40) and also wireless technology (see, e.g., id. at Fig. 44). Patent Owner argues that implementing aspects of Gorman and Flach’s wireless devices onto Amano’s wired device “would have required complete redesigns and new components.” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶77–78, 81–82) Given the recognition in the art, such as Amano, that a workout device may include either wired or wireless components, it is difficult to reach the conclusion that “complete redesign” would be necessary. Nevertheless, that there may be some design considerations, or even challenges, that a skilled artisan may face in combining those two types of communication technology, does not end the obviousness inquiry. The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art has significant engineering and design experience in connection with wearable workout devices. See Pet. 18, PO Resp. 16. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Bergeron adequately explains why any design challenges in combining aspects a wired workout device with a wireless workout device would have been beyond the skill or ordinarily skilled artisan, so as to preclude a determination of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,413 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,413
• Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2024 · IPR2023-00424 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10, 12–17, and 19 as anticipated or obvious over Acres, and claims 9 and 18 as obvious over Acres and Pyles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner indicates that “[f]or purposes of this Response, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 14. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art as reasonable and consistent with the prior 9 Person of ordinary skill in the art. art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Considering the discussion above, we conclude that the meaning of “data” previously offered by Patent Owner as “factual information, from 10 [JUDGE]: Counsel, let me borrow my colleague’s question. Maybe I’m belaboring this, but in your view, information that is sensed or collected or factual information that is sensed or collected, that’s effectively the same thing; and this case does not distinguish between factual information in that context and just information? [COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWER]: Yes. That’s correct, Your Honor. which decisions and subsequent actions can be made” finds support in the record, and also is in accord with the meaning of “data” as “information” that is offered by Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 2).11 Accordingly, we adopt the meaning of “data” that Patent Owner offered in its Preliminary Response as “factual information, from which decisions and subsequent actions can be made.” See Prelim Resp. 18. In doing so, we reiterate and restate our view from the Institution Decision that the record does not lend itself to a conclusion that such a meaning of “data” is so restrictive as to convey that any instructions, commands, or signals are “entirely devoid of content recognized as ‘factual information’ so as to be beyond the contours of what a skilled artisan would regard as ‘data.’” See Inst. Dec. 9.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Thus, Acres discloses that, based upon an exerciser’s heart rate, Bug 601 operates to send or transmit commands to treadmill 150 to control operational parameters of the treadmill, such as its speed and incline. Petitioner contends that “Acres’s Bug and its associated sensors are together a sensor device.” See, e.g., Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner does not dispute that contention. Patent Owner’s dispute arises from its position that Acres’s transmitted commands do not amount to the claimed “first set of data.” See PO Resp. 21–25; PO Sur-reply 10–14. That dispute is premised on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, which requires that the claimed “data” be only information that is sensed or collected in some other specific way by a sensor. As discussed above in our Claim Construction section (§ II.C.1), however, we do not agree that the record substantiates such a narrow meaning for the term “data.” It is difficult to conclude that a command that is generated based on a user’s heart rate that operates to control the functionality of a piece of workout equipment is not readily viewed as “factual information, from which decisions or subsequent actions can be made,” which, as discussed above, is a meaning of “data” that reasonably emerges to one of ordinary skill in the art based on record evidence.12 In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner also briefly states that Acres does not show that “decisions or subsequent actions can be made” from “data.” PO Sur-reply 12–13. It is apparent, however, that Patent Owner does not dispute that decisions or subsequent actions may be made based on the commands transmitted from Acres’s Bug. Id. at 13 (“lululemon has only established that Acres teaches that decisions or subsequent actions are made based on commands transmitted from the Bug.”). Indeed, no dispute is credible because, as noted above, Acres clearly describes the commands the Bug sends operate to control operation of workout equipment, such as increasing its speed. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. Rather, Patent Owner simply parallels its prior arguments that a deficiency arises because, in Patent 12 We again note that “factual information, from which decisions or subsequent actions can be made” was the meaning of “data” advocated by Patent Owner as a part of its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 18. Owner’s view, the commands do not encompass “data.” As discussed above, we do not agree with that contention. Patent Owner does not contend that any other feature of independent” slip op. at 24

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

    “agree with Patent Owner (see, e.g., PO Resp. 27–28; PO Sur-reply 14–17), but rather agree with Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. 29–31; Pet. Reply 19–21). The record does not demonstrate that there is some type of fundamental dichotomy between local data storage of activity at a piece of workout equipment and remote, central data storage of such activity that prohibits or precludes combining teachings directed to each approach. Rather, the record readily conveys that each type of data storage approach was recognized as known and viable. Even if there may have been some disadvantages with one or both approaches, the obviousness inquiry does not somehow mandate that a combination of teachings must result in something that is free of imperfection. As suggested by Petitioner, a skilled artisan readily would have recognized some benefits accrue to the local data storage approach advocated by Pyles. Even if there may have been some disadvantages to that approach, that does not nullify appreciation of the benefits that may offset such disadvantages. See, e.g., Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another”). Indeed, as argued by Petitioner, and as attested to by Dr. Houh, the record reasonably establishes that a skilled artisan would have evaluated potential benefits and detriments as part of various data storage approaches in the area of workout equipment in assessing obviousness. See, e.g., Pet. 29–31; Pet. Reply 19–21; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68–73; Ex. 1015 ¶ 31. The obviousness inquiry demands as much. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. McLean, postulates, without record citation, that some detriments may possibly arise in implementing data storage at an exercise machine, as in Pyles, in lieu of central site storage as in Acres. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 64–68. Yet, even if such less-than-desirable characteristics may result, neither Dr. McLean nor Patent Owner offers any cogent explanation as to why recognition of those characteristics undermines a determination of obviousness. In particular, Dr. McLean does not dispute that local storage would have the benefits discussed by Dr. Houh (a simplified, less expensive structure with a reduced number of components, which do not need to be connected to the internet), albeit along with the disadvantages discussed by Dr. McLean. Indeed, Dr. McLean and Patent Owner do not explain why a skilled artisan would not reasonably have evaluated any detriments alongside the potential benefits as a part of the obviousness inquiry. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). That test does not objectively fail if a skilled artisan would have recognized some disadvantages in combining the prior art teachings. See, e.g., Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,923,225 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,923,225
• Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00348 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–7, and 12 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 5–7 are anticipated by Lofi, and claims 1, 5–7, and 12 are obvious over Maeueler and Kitagawa.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “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). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’930 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Fischer (Ex. 1005 ¶ 44).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “providing first instructions to a user to perform a first athletic movement.” Ex. 1001, 26:17–18. The claim language itself suggests that “a first athletic movement” is simply the physical exercises, drills, or activities the user is instructed to perform via the first instructions. See Pet. Reply 4 (Petitioner arguing that the “instructions” recited in claim 1 “define the first and second athletic movements”). So, if the “first instructions” (notably plural) instructed a user to run one mile, then running one mile would be the “first athletic movement”; and likewise, if the “first instructions” instructed a user to perform 10 squats, perform 10 push-ups, and run one mile, then performing the 10 squats, performing 10 push-ups, and running one mile would be the “first athletic movement.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we find no suggestion in claim 1 that “a first athletic movement” should be limited to a single “athletic movement” or “a single type of exercise or athletic activity.” Indeed, a single “type of exercise” or single “athletic activity” both appear to be proverbial “noses of wax,” as Patent Owner provides no explanation for how the skilled artisan would definitively distinguish one type of exercise or athletic activity from another (e.g., “weightlifting” could be considered an athletic activity or a “type” of exercise, yet it comprises countless weighted physical motions and sequences; similarly, “swimming” could be considered an athletic activity or a “type” of exercise, yet it too comprises many physical forms or techniques invoking many different physical motions and sequences (such as breaststroke, backstroke, butterfly, and sidestroke). We note that claim 6, which depends directly from independent claim 1, recites: “[W]herein the first instructions and the second instructions include a plurality of drills configured to test a plurality of fitness attributes of the user and a plurality of athleticism attributes of the user.” Ex. 1001, 26:57–60 (emphases added). Although less than artfully worded, we find that dependent claim 6 plainly requires that the first (and second) instructions provided to the user in claim 1 instruct the user on performing “a plurality of drills” (i.e., more than a single drill), which further supports our interpretation of “a first athletic movement.” See Pet. Reply 4. Patent Owner argues, inter alia, claim 6 specifies that “the first instructions and second instructions must be selected from a specific ‘plurality of drills’— rather than from some other source (e.g., an athletic competition).” PO Surreply 5–6 (emphasis added); see id. at 6–7 (Patent Owner arguing “claim 6 simply requires the first and second instructions to identify a first and second ‘athletic movement’ that are selected from a certain catalog of drills” (emphasis added)). We find Patent Owner’s attempt to contort “includes” to mean “selected from” a certain grouping unavailing, because “including” A, B, and C is simply not the same as “select[ing] [one] from” A, B, and C.” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Both parties argue that the terms “first instructions” and “first activity data” should have their ordinary and customary meanings or otherwise do not require construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. PO Resp. 21–22; Pet. Reply 8–10. We agree.” slip op. at 25

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Claims: We turn first to the claim language itself. We are mindful of Judge Rich’s guidance from over thirty years ago: in all aspects of claim construction, “the name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles Sutherland Rich, Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims–American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “providing first instructions to a user to perform a first athletic movement.” Ex. 1001, 26:17–18. The claim language itself suggests that “a first athletic movement” is simply the physical exercises, drills, or activities the user is instructed to perform via the first instructions. See Pet. Reply 4 (Petitioner arguing that the “instructions” recited in claim 1 “define the first and second athletic movements”). So, if the “first instructions” (notably plural) instructed a user to run one mile, then running one mile would be the “first athletic movement”; and likewise, if the “first instructions” instructed a user to perform 10 squats, perform 10 push-ups, and run one mile, then performing the 10 squats, performing 10 push-ups, and running one mile would be the “first athletic movement.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we find no suggestion in claim 1 that “a first athletic movement” should be limited to a single “athletic movement” or “a single type of exercise or athletic activity.” Indeed, a single “type of exercise” or single “athletic activity” both appear to be proverbial “noses of wax,” as Patent Owner provides no explanation for how the skilled artisan would definitively distinguish one type of exercise or athletic activity from another (e.g., “weightlifting” could be considered an athletic activity or a “type” of exercise, yet it comprises countless weighted physical motions and” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,188,930 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,188,930

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.