- Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · PGR2025-00023 · APJ Per Curiam · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’629 publication; the claims are not entitled to the 2013 priority date.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSITA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining that “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSITA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSITA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 22; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find a POSITA with respect to the claims of the ’109 patent would have had a two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSITA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes an express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 22–23 (not proposing any constructions); PO Resp. 23 (“Patent Owner agrees that the terms can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.”). However, Patent Owner states that some of Petitioner’s arguments implicitly construe claim 1 in an erroneous manner. PO Resp. 23–28. “For example, Petitioner argues that ‘an adequate written description would have to either disclose representative examples of the possible working cascades of various proteins or some accurate structural feature of the claimed proteins that allow them to function in the claimed assay as a whole.’” Id. at 23 (quoting Pet. 35). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to what Petitioner’s argument allegedly implies, “Claim 1 is directed to a method for producing an endotoxin assay agent” and does not require the use – Owner that claim 1 does not require the use of endotoxin assay agent. However, the claimed endotoxin assay agent must be capable of performing the assay, as counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged. Tr. 83:5–9.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In this case, to show that the claims of the ’109 patent are unpatentable for lack of written description, Petitioner would have needed to show that the specification as filed (i.e., the ’420 application) fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the July 3, 2023, filing date. Petitioner did not. Pet. 23–24. Nor does Petitioner’s declarant offer testimony that could support such a showing. See Ex. 1003 ¶50 (“I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art in this field for purposes of determining what the inventors disclosed as their invention as of December 10, 2013.”), ¶51 (“Whenever I offer an opinion in this declaration about the knowledge of a POSA, the manner in which a POSA would have understood the claims of the ’109 patent or its description, the manner in have been led to do based on the prior art, I am referencing the December 10, 2013 timeframe.”). In our Institution Decision, we stated: Although the ’420 application is essentially identical to the ’767 application, the person of ordinary skill in 2013 is not the same as in 2023. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he [written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the information presented in the Petition, which is limited to the perspective of a 2013 POSITA, does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable for lack of written description. Inst. Dec. 12 (alterations in original). During trial, Petitioner did not present any further arguments in support of Ground 1. See generally Pet. Reply. Petitioner has failed to prove that claims 1–9 are unpatentable for failing to meet the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“Although the evidence before us shows that, in 2013, a POSITA knew how to recombinantly express genes in expression systems such as CHO or HEK-293 cell lines, the evidence shows that this was true only for genes whose genetic sequences were known or readily available. See, e.g., Ex. 1069, 34:11–22 (“Q. Okay. So you would agree that the creation of the recombinant protein requires the underlying sequence of, as you said, the original animal? A. Of course.”) Because it is undisputed that, in 2013, the genetic sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C was unknown, or least not publicly available, Falko-Gunter does not support a finding of adequate written description here. See, e.g., Tr. 48:18–19 (“Patent Owner agrees that there had not been, as of 2013, the full length cDNA sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C published.”).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,959,109 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,959,109 - Avation Medical, Inc. v. Emkinetics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 7, 2026 · PGR2024-00043 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–39 are unpatentable under Grounds 1–10; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement under Ground 11, and Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST Petitioner identifies Avation Medical, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Pet. x. Patent Owner identifies EMKinetics, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Paper 5, 1; Paper 6, 1. Neither party contests the other’s assertions on this. C.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A POSA at the time of the claimed invention would have had an undergraduate degree in the field of biomedical engineering or a related discipline, such as electrical engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices. Additional work experience could substitute for a formal degree and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶21. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed definition or offer an alternative. See generally Resp. We accept and use Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, which appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’943 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may]” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“same claim construction standard that is used to construe patent claims in a civil action in federal district court. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). In construing claims, district courts and the Board here, by default, give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner states that, “no terms require construction for purposes of this Petition.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner presents no express position on claim construction. See generally Resp. We do not expressly construe any claim terms. E.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“question, based on factual findings. VidStream, 981 F.3d at 1063–64. Moreover, public accessibility is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a printed publication and such depends on whether the reference was available to interested, ordinarily skilled persons exercising reasonable diligence, which is determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 1065. Particularly pertinent here is that “[w]hen there is an established publisher there is a presumption of public accessibility as of the publication date.” Id. Hulu (which cites VidStream on this issue) concerned, inter alia, whether certain asserted references were shown to be publicly available and could be considered as prior art. Hulu, 2021 WL 487622. Hulu holds that, although testimonial evidence is one way to prove public accessibility, there are also a variety of hallmarks of publication and other evidence that may be considered as a totality of the evidence to determine if an asserted reference was publicly accessible and prior art. Id. at *10–13, 21. Facts to be considered in analyzing the issue, other than testimonial evidence, include, for example, whether there is an established publisher, a copyright date/notice, other publication-related dates (impression, printing, etc.), an ISBN number, citations to the reference before (and to a lesser degree, after) the priority date at issue corroborating its availability and/or that the publisher was established, and whether the reference’s “purpose of publishing . . . was ‘dialogue with an intended audience.’” Id. at *10–21 (citing Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021)).” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 11,844,943 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,844,943 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · PGR2024-00043 · APJ John G New · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on all challenged claims, finding a sufficient likelihood that claims are anticipated or obvious under Grounds 1–10; it found Ground 11’s enablement challenge insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board “may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless … the information presented in the petition … if such information is not rebutted would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” For the reasons we explain below, we institute post-grant review of the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“asserted reference qualifies as prior art is public accessibility. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “[A]t the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application (at top center). See Ex. 1001, code (60) (listing “provisional application No. 5,995,873, filed on Oct. 2, 2006”). However, simply to claim the priority benefit of an earlier application is not necessarily to receive it. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority.… Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120.”). As the diagram shows (and as we have verified), the ’529 application was a continuation-in-part of the preceding ’329 application. See Ex. 1001, code (63). However, the ’529 application was abandoned on February 10, 2016 (See Ex. 1052), and the succeeding application, U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 15,474,875 (the “’875 application”) which is listed in the ’943 patent as being a continuation-in-part of the ’529 application, was not filed until March 30, 2017. See Ex. 1001, code (63) (stating that “said application No. 15/474,875 is a continuation-in-part of application No. 12/508,529”). Put simply, the ’875 application was not filed until over a year after the ’529 application was abandoned. As 35 U.S.C. § 120 states, in relevant part: An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385, which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. (emphasis added). In other words, if there is a “break in the chain” of priority caused by the abandonment or termination of an application claiming priority prior to filing of a subsequent application, the subsequent application loses the priority benefit of the abandoned or terminated application, as well as the priority benefit of all applications that antedate that abandoned or terminated application. Such is the case presently before us. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the abandonment of the ’529 application prior to filing of the continuation-in-part ’875 application broke the priority chain leading to the ’720 provisional application, and the ’943 patent cannot, therefore, claim the priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application’s October 2, 2006 filing date. Consequently, the earliest date of which the ’943 patent could possibly claim the priority benefit is that of U.S. Patent Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/403,680 (the “’680 provisional application”) (located at the top of the left branch of the “family tree” depicted above), which has a filing date of September 20, 2010. See Ex. 1001, code (60). Burnett (i.e., the ’329 application) was filed on October 2, 2007 and thus antedates the ’680 provisional application. Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument fails based on the current record, and Burnett is prior art to the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 55
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) is not tenable. In deciding whether to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) in situations where only some of the challenges fall within its scope, we evaluate the challenges and determine whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting on all challenges. If so, the panel will evaluate whether the entire petition should be denied.” See USPTO, SAS Q&As (June 5, 2018) at D1, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/ sas_qas_20180605.pdf; see also Kansas State Univ. Res. Found., PGR2022- 00021, Paper 11 at 7–8 & n.3 (Vidal Feb. 24, 2023) (holding that “the Board will further evaluate … whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting review on all challenges presented in the Petition”). We having instituted post grant review based at least upon claim 1 of Ground 1 of the Petition. Even if the panel agreed with Patent Owner that Grounds 5–8 present “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” previously presented to the Office, § 325(d) would not be “sufficiently implicated” due to the 7 other asserted grounds. We therefore do not proceed with the § 325(d) analysis established in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) and decline to exercise our discretion to deny the petition on that basis.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,844,943 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00025 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–20 were more likely than not unpatentable over either obviousness ground, for lack of utility, or as indefinite.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’033 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–22, 44–45). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’033 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not offer a specific construction for any claim terms. Pet. 19–20. Rather, Petitioner contends that “the outer boundary of the Challenged Claims lacks reasonable certainty,” and, therefore, “the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b).” Pet. 20. Petitioner further contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious “regardless of the outer boundary of the claims.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s arguments regarding indefiniteness, and does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. As explained in detail below, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, and determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner focuses its obviousness challenge on 1PNZQ23’s phenotype, and does not address its genotype. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 26–32 (comparing 1PNZQ23’s phenotype with the phenotypes of the asserted prior art). Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any information in the Petition or Reply regarding 1PNZQ23’s genotype that supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding obviousness. Furthermore, Patent Owner offers information suggesting that “the breeding of 1PNZQ23 was unpredictable even with both parents being known in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Schnable addresses unpredictability in the breeding process, stating: distinct even when the F1 plant itself results from a cross of two inbreds. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not expect that a cross of the same parents will produce F2 or D1 progeny identical to 1PNZQ23. . . . [T]he genome of a progeny plant is the result of genetic segregation and recombination in the F1 plant of the two parental genomes and the chance of the exact same child resulting from that initial biparental cross is infinitesimally small. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123. This information undermines Petitioner’s arguments regarding an expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,707,033 - PTAB · Jan 31, 2024 · PGR2023-00043 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR of claims 1–22 on all petitioned grounds, finding at least one claim more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Although Patent Owner’s definition of a POSA includes an additional four to six years of experience, we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for purposes of our analysis. Both definitions provide for a highly skilled POSA with experience in formulating drugs, and our Decision would be unchanged whether we applied Petitioner’s definition or Patent Owner’s. Nevertheless, on this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition as it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). To the extent the parties dispute the level of ordinary skill and its impact on the analysis of the challenged claims, we encourage the parties to address this issue further during trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“We determine it is unnecessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Because Petitioner’s construction—with Patent Owner’s addition—is consistent with the Specification, we apply that construction of “enteric capsule” in this proceeding. See Ex. 1001, 39:22–26. We also note that Patent Owner appears to construe the claim phrase “the compound of Formula (III) is (Z)-endoxifen” to be limited to the free base form of (Z)-endoxifen. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 2 (“The ’334 patent claims enteric coated capsule formulations containing at least 90% (Z)- endoxifen free base, methods of delivering such formulations to a patient resulting in specific pharmacokinetic parameters, and methods of treating hormone-dependent breast and reproductive tract disorders.”) (emphasis added). The Specification, however, expressly states “‘a compound’, such as compounds of . . . Formula (III) . . . include the polymorphic salt, free base, co-crystal, and solvate forms of the formulas and/or compounds disclosed herein.” Ex. 1001, 12:48–52; see also id. at 12:52–59 (stating “‘compounds of Formula (III)’ . . . include . . . the free base of the compounds of Formula (III), and/or the gluconate salts as described herein”). To the extent there is any dispute as to the scope of “the compound of Formula (III) is (Z)-endoxifen” in the claims, the parties should address that construction at trial. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the express definition set forth in the Specification. That is, we construe “the compound of Formula (III) is (Z)-endoxifen” to include the polymorphic salt, free base, co-crystal and solvate forms of (Z)-endoxifen. See Ex. 1001, 12:48–59.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,572,334 - Danxiao Information Technology Ltd. v. Shenzhen Svakom Technology Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · PGR2022-00050 · APJ Jason W Melvin · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20 are anticipated; claims 3 and 13 are obvious. The revised motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, software engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience related to development of software for distributed or networked applications.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 51). Patent Owner does not dispute or otherwise address Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We adopt Petitioner’s definition, as it appears to be consistent with the ’041 patent’s description and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 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)). Petitioner asserts that no term requires construction. Pet. 13. Patent Owner agrees “that all terms in the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meanings” and does not propose any constructions under that standard. PO Resp. 8. We agree that no claim term requires express construction to resolve the disputes in this proceeding. slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner contends that the 2019 Lovense System does not disclose “receiving the interactive result and controlling said adult toy to actuate according to the interactive result” in each independent claim, in particular pointing to the “according to the interactive result” phrase. PO Resp. 18–20.7 In Patent Owner’s view, under its plain meaning, “‘according to’ means ‘in a manner corresponding or conforming to; in proportion or relation to; in accordance with.’” Id. at 18. Thus, Patent Owner submits, in the claim “the system needs to issue control instructions to the adult toy such that the adult toy exhibits different actuations in a manner corresponding or conforming to different interactive results.” Id. Addressing Petitioner’s evidence, Patent Owner contends that, in the 2019 Lovense System, 7 Throughout its arguments, Patent Owner cites to the Declaration of Mingshao Zhang. In resolving the parties’ disputes, we have considered the extent to which Dr. Zhang’s opinions lend a persuasive viewpoint to Patent Owner’s arguments. “regardless of the interactive result of the dice roll, all the toys always actuate by vibrating for 3 seconds.” Id. at 19. Petitioner responds that the 2019 Lovense System “discloses the toy vibrating for different lengths of time, and at differing vibration speeds, in response to different dice rolls.” Pet. Reply 15. We agree. As Petitioner shows, the configuration instructions state that, “[y]ou, the model, well also set a prize for each dice roll number” and show a configuration in which each roll corresponds to a different actuation time. Ex. 1009-2, 51, 52. Patent Owner focuses on Exhibit 1010-1, in which the narrator discusses configuring “what each dice roll will do” and states that, in the displayed configuration, “you can see all toys are going to vibrate for three seconds.” Ex. 1010-1, 5:10–5:11; accord id. at 4:28–4:44 (“And then I’ve just checked all toys to react for three seconds.”). But the screens depicted show without ambiguity that each distinct roll is associated with a setting for reaction time. Id. at 4:28–4:44. Thus, the system depicted in Exhibit 1010 (the video) is consistent with Exhibit 1009, the configuration instructions. Based on the foregoing, we find the software is configured to actuate the toy according to the interactive result in the 2019 Lovense System.8 Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s anticipation challenge. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions, agree with them, and adopt them. Pet. 28–69; Pet. Reply 14–18. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown anticipation of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20 by the 2019 Lovense System.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s reliance on Wiltshire, arguing that it “is not an analogous prior art to Olivares or the 2019 Video.” PO Resp. 22–23. The correct inquiry is whether Wiltshire is analogous to the ’041 patent. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner asserts that Wiltshire is “in the field of online games of chance.” Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 8, 11, 31–36). The ’041 patent states it is “directed methods and systems for interactive online adult entertainment.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9; see Pet. Reply 20. As Petitioner’s expert points out, the ’041 patent includes “casino style games such as a ‘dice game’ and a ‘lottery game.’” Ex. 1020 ¶ 8 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4). Petitioner’s expert also identifies that Wiltshire discloses “dice games (e.g., craps) and lottery games (e.g., keno), in addition to many other casino style games.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011, 1:25–45). We conclude that Petitioner has shown Wiltshire is in the same field as the ’041 patent and, at a minimum, reasonably pertinent to problems addressed in the ’041 patent. Namely, both the ’041 patent and Wiltshire address providing online versions of casino-style games. Thus, we find that Wiltshire is analogous art to the ’041 patent.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 11,134,041 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,134,041 - Life Vac, LLC v. Dcstar Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · PGR2023-00032 · APJ Michael L Woods · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–17 were more likely than not unpatentable over Lih, Tarrats, and da Costa or anticipated by Lih.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“institute an post-grant review if “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed definitions are similar, with a primary difference being that Petitioner’s definition more broadly includes people having experience with “medical devices in general.” Compare Pet. 18–19, with Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s standard is “unreasonably broad,” arguing that Patent Owner’s definition for a skilled artisan “more reasonably focuses on the nature of the subject invention.” Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have necessarily required experience with respiratory devices, as Patent Owner proposes. See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. We find Petitioner’s definition, which would include “a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least 5 years of experience in designing or developing medical devices in general,” is consistent with the ’575 patent and the asserted prior art. Pet. 18–19; see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner expressly construes “bottom plate” and “check valve.” See Pet. 20–21. Patent Owner proposes a construction for “bottom plate,” “check valve,” and “connector.” Prelim Resp. 8–11. For purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not formally construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Each of the Challenged Claims requires a connector with a “bottom plate,” yet Petitioner fails to explain how the combined references would yield a connector with such a plate. See Prelim. Resp. 30–33 (arguing the same); see also Ex. 1001, 10:14–17 (independent claim 1), 10:46 (independent claim 3), 11:63 (independent claim 9); 12:35–36 (independent claim 13). Neither of Lih’s connector (element 118, Fig. 3) nor Tarrats’s “connector” (element 15, Fig. 1) has a “plate,” and Petitioner fails to explain how the lower surface of da Costa’s piston is being used to modify Lih’s or Tarrats’s connector to satisfy the claimed structure. See 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5); see also Pet. 28–29. Further, Petitioner relies on da Costa’s heart resuscitating device, rather than its dechoking device, in modifying Lih. See Pet. 29 (citing da Costa’s Figure 6 and relief valves 55, 56). da Costa’s heart resuscitation device, however, is used for pumping air into a patient’s lungs for the purpose of initiating blood circulation in the event the patient’s heart stopped working. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 6:43–52. The pressure relief valves cited by Petitioner are presumably used to prevent over-pressurizing and under-pressurizing the patient’s lungs, which we understand would be dangerous for the patient. We do not see a skilled artisan as incorporating da Costa’s pressure relief valves into Lih’s choking intervention device, which is structured to prevent pumping air into a patient. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:3–5 (“bellows assembly 102 may include a relief valve 108 configured to allow air to escape . . . when the bellows 104 is being compressed”). Petitioner explains that the combination would “avoid pushing the obstruction farther into the user’s airway while in use and to initiate blood circulation” (see Pet. 29), yet Lih’s valve 108 already “avoid[s] pushing the obstruction farther into the user’s airway” and “initiat[ing] blood circulation” benefits a heart-resuscitation device, not Lih’s dechoking device. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the proposed combination lacks sufficient reasoning. See Prelim. Resp. 33–37. We further agree with Patent Owner that modifying Lih’s device so that it pumps air into a patient’s lungs for the purpose of “initiating blood circulation,” as reasoned by Petitioner (see Pet. 29), would render Lih’s device unsuitable as a dechoking device, which is its intended purpose. See Prelim. Resp. 37–38 (arguing the same). To reiterate, Lih’s dechoking device avoids introducing air into the patient’s lungs, which would further lodge an obstruction in the patient’s trachea. See Ex. 1004, 4:3–5.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,478,575 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Memoryweb, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 16, 2023 · PGR2022-00034 · APJ Kevin C Trock · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–34 are unpatentable: claims 1–25 and 27–34 over Pogue and Engst, and claim 26 over Pogue, Engst, and Ripps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Cir. 1986)) for its point is also misplaced. In re Hall stands for a different proposition, one which states that “competent evidence of the general library practice may be relied upon to establish an approximate time when a thesis became accessible.” Id. at 781 F.2d at 898. Although Pogue and Engst are not doctoral theses, the principal espoused in In re Hall is still applicable here. Ms. Munford’s testimony provides competent evidence of general library practices which can be relied upon to establish an approximate time when a printed publication became publicly accessible. Accordingly, we credit Ms. Munford’s testimony on general library practices and accept her testimony as credible that Pogue was made available to the public by the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh shortly after acquiring it on January 21, 2009, and that Engst was made available to the public by the Illinois State University Library shortly after acquiring it on May 25, 2009. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 8–13.” slip op. at 35
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“determination in this case. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1030–1033 is denied as moot.” slip op. at 100
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d) Conclusion on Independent Claims 1 and 29 We have considered the evidence and arguments with respect to” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 11,163,823 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,163,823 - PTAB · Aug 4, 2023 · PGR2023-00016 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12, 14–17, and 19 based on a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable across the petition’s grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that at least one claim of the ’705 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review as to all challenged claims of the ’705 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“pertinence of Bruning, in particular, or of any reference Patent Owner asserts is substantially similar to Evanicky, Lee, Doheny and Van Winkle or of the asserted combinations thereof, and did not issue a rejection based on their disclosures or combined teachings, and that this constitutes Examiner error. See Pet. 5–6, 10–11. Indeed, in the Final Written Decision in PGR2022-00009, the Board determined that Bruning anticipates independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and many other dependent claims of the parent ’341 patent, which claims are substantially similar to the challenged claims in this case involving the child ’705 patent. Ex. 1032, 52–68. Also, as discussed below in Section V, we determine that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12, 14–17, and 19 of the ’705 patent are unpatentable. We also find the Examiner’s error here is further compounded by not having identified that the claims of the ’705 patent are not entitled to claim priority to any of the filing dates of any of its ancestor applications, and thus, not having searched for and considered a substantial pool of prior art. See supra Sections III.B, III.C. Accordingly, Becton, Dickinson factor (e) weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 37
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“Pet. 11–15), we determine that the ’215 provisional (and other Pre-AIA Applications) does not provide sufficient written description support to reasonably convey to the skilled artisan that, as of the filing date of the ’215 provisional, the inventors had possession of the limitation “wherein the switch is electrically connected between the DC voltage output and at least one of the first operating LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit,” as recited in claim 1. See Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351. Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded that the ’215 provisional lacks sufficient written description support for the inventions recited in claims 1–20 of the ’705 patent. Thus, on this record, claims 1–20 of the ’705 patent are not entitled to priority and, for purposes of institution, do not receive an effective filing date as early as that of the ’597 PCT (i.e., 2010) or any other Pre-AIA Application.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“h) Conclusion At this stage of the proceeding and based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s cited evidence sufficiently supports Petitioner’s contention that independent claim 15 is unpatentable as anticipated by Bruning. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that independent claim 15 is anticipated by Bruning.” slip op. at 74
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,297,705
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.