- PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00240 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–42 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review “unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). We determine whether to institute a post grant review on behalf of the Director. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated there is a reasonable likelihood that the petition would prevail in showing that at least one challenged is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“patient is MSI-H after enrollment in a study in which pembrolizumab is to be administered is not within the scope of the claim step “in response to determining that the colorectal cancer is microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, treating the patient with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab.” At this point in the proceeding, though, we do not interpret the claim step as meaning anything other than the treatment of colorectal cancer patients after they have been determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient. Although the term “in response to” in claim 1 requires that treatment of the patient occur after the determination that the colorectal cancer is MSI-H, we do not interpret the term to mean that other patients are not treated or that the recruitment and enrollment of patients for a clinical trial has any bearing on the steps recited in claim 1. We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Patent Owner has not directed us to evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood treating a patient “in response to” the determination that the patient has a condition excludes treatment of other patients without the condition, although it does require that treatment of the patient occur after the determination that the colorectal cancer is MSI-H. The language of claim 1 refers only to patients that are determined to have microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer, not to other patients. (See Ex. 1001, 25:40–50.) At this point in the proceeding, the record does not indicate that the treatment of patients determined not to be MSI-H is be factored into whether the teaching of treating patients determined to be MSI-H anticipates the method of claim 1. At this point in the proceeding, we construe the “in response to” limitation of claim 1 to mean that pembrolizumab is administered to a patient after the patient has been determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, regardless of whether pembrolizumab is also administered to other patients.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“H Study Record teaches treating colorectal cancer patients after they were determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient with pembrolizumab. (See MSI-H Study Record, Ex, 1005, 4 (Arms and Interventions); see also id., 2 (Study Identification), 3 (Study Description), 4–5 (Outcome Measures), 5–6 (Eligibility); see Neugut Decl., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 58–62.) At this point in the proceeding, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that there is a reasonable likelihood of a causal relationship in the MSI-H Study Record between treatment of colorectal cancer patients and the determination of their MSI status — all colorectal cancer patients determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient were treated. Whether or not other patients were treated or enrolled in the study does not detract from this teaching.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Furthermore, to the extent the MSI-H Study Record does not disclose the limitation of “in response to determining that the colorectal cancer is microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, treating the patient with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab,” the record before us supports this limitation being rendered obvious by Pernot and the MSI-H Study Record. Specifically, because Pernot teaches that colorectal cancer patients are good candidates for immunotherapy, the evidence of the current record shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to use to PD-1 inhibitors to treat colorectal cancers. (See Ex. 1006, 3741.) Additionally, the focus in the MSI-H Study Record on a clinical study treating colorectal cancer patients who had been determined to be MSI-H with prembrolizumab indicates that it would have been obvious to test for this condition before treatment. The additional references discussed by Petitioner contribute further to a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail. For example, Libson reports the successful treatment of a colorectal cancer patient having MSI-H status with a PD- 1 inhibitor (see Ex. 1057, 463-64) and Champiat discusses evaluating the clinical activity of PD-1 agents in DNA mismatch repair, such as MSI+, colorectal cancer (see Ex. 1032, e27817-5). (See Pet. 44.) Thus, based on the entire record before us, Petitioner presents a reasonable likelihood that the method of claim 1 would have been considered obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,591,393 - Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01602 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 8–10 are anticipated by Weiman, and claims 4–7 and 11–14 are obvious over Weiman and Mozeleski; the revised motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 (Drewry Decl.) ¶¶ 76–79). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See generally Response. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find persuasive, and credit, Mr. Drewry’s testimony that (1) a POSITA would have appreciated that the proposed modification to replace Weiman’s screw/socket with Waugh’s angled version provides benefits including “avoiding selected muscular and abdominal anatomical structures,” and (2) such “benefits would have been desirable for certain applications, such as those where the patient’s anatomy dictates that OLIF would provide the patient with the best medical outcome.” Ex. 1044 (Drewry Second Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 23–26; see also Ex. 1043 (Waugh), ¶¶ 54, 87–90 (describing use of angled screw holes to, e.g., “receive a fastener via a surgical pathway” and configured “to penetrate endplate tissue of a vertebral body”). We find the weight of evidence supports Petitioner’s articulation of a POSITA’s understanding of how to use angles to avoid anatomical features” slip op. at 61
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that no terms require construction “because they are shown to be anticipated and/or obvious regardless of construction.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner did not propose any terms for construction. See generally Response. We determine that no claim terms require express construction to render this Decision.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“j. Conclusion on Claim 1 For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Weiman discloses each and every limitation of claim 1, and therefore anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,956,087 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,956,087 - Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2022-01435 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: Chung anticipates claim 10, and the Olmos-based obviousness grounds establish unpatentability of claims 1–11.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“9 Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s Reply brief “presents copious new evidence and theories that exceed the scope of proper reply” and “[t]he Board should refuse to consider” it. Sur-reply 7–9. This generic objection to the entire Reply fails to provide adequate notice regarding which of Petitioner’s theories and arguments Patent Owner contends are allegedly new and improper. See, e.g., Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting generic objection to alleged new theories in reply as failing to provide adequate notice of which theories are allegedly new). Accordingly, we reject Patent Owner’s request that we “refuse to consider” the entirety of the Reply. Where Patent Owner’s Sur-reply raises more particularized complaints regarding Petitioner’s allegedly improper new arguments, we address those complaints as appropriate below.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Accordingly, we find Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Chung.” slip op. at 65
Patent outcomesUS 10,137,001 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,137,001 - PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · PGR2024-00004 · APJ Scott A Daniels · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–24 and all petition grounds, finding it more likely than not that claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–11, 13–17, and 20–24 are obvious over Emma, Butt, and Smith.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). A post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] 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) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine, for the reasons set forth below, that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds presented. Therefore, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering . . . [a]lternatively, a POSITA could have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, physics, or a related engineering or discipline, plus at least two years of experience working with control circuits, sensors, kitchen appliances, or similar fields. ordinary skill in the art and states that “[t]he differences do not matter for purposes of this Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’746 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“level of smoke” Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner expressly indicate that any claim terms require express construction. See Petition 13–14; Prelim. Resp 5. However, Petitioner contends that for the phrase “level of smoke,” recited in claims 1, 15, and 22, “Patent Owner interprets ‘level of smoke’ as merely detecting smoke.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 6). Patent Owner argues that it “does not offer a special definition” and “asked the [district] court to give these terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 5, n 2. Patent Owner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would similarly understand ‘level of smoke’ when read in the full context of the intrinsic record.” Id. in light of the specification, we understand “level of smoke” as a predetermined level of smoke “indicative of a dangerous condition” as the specification of the ’746 patent explains. Ex. 1001, 15:43–44, see also id. at 15:63–65 (The ’746 patent describing “[t]he determination of a level of smoke corresponding to a dangerous condition.”). To the extent the parties disagree, they may address this issue more directly in subsequent briefing. slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“POSITA to reasonably combine Emma with a smoke sensor reference.” Prelim. Resp. 44. We agree that Emma does not disclose a smoke sensor, but Petitioner has provided other prior art references, namely Butt and Smith, and presented several reasons, namely safety reasons, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider adding a smoke detector from Butt and Smith to Emma’s microwave oven. Pet. 24, 74–75. Obviousness is not determined from the perspective of the inventors or authors of a single prior art reference. Rather, obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art. It is only that hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent prior art. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Petitioner argues, for instance, that Butt teaches the fire safety aspects of “a controller for interrupting a supply of electricity to an appliance upon detection of a trigger, such as [s]moke.” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1015, 1:16– 18). Dr. Horenstein testifies that from a safety perspective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “combine[d] the additional kitchen-safety appliance features of Butt with the Emma microwave/refrigerator so as to enable the Emma microwave to shut down upon the detection of smoke, and to reenable the Emma microwave for a further cooking session when the smoke had cleared.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 124. Where Butt arguably discloses a smoke detector external to an appliance, Dr. Horenstein testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to “Smith to include the smoke sensor in operative connection with the microwave oven with the reset functionality disclosed by Butt for the added benefit of reusing the microwave oven.” Id. ¶ 127 (emphasis added). each directed towards shutting down a component of the device in response to a sensor output indicative of an unwanted condition.” Id. ¶ 127. Dr. Horenstein testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have combined the elements as disclosed by known methods for the purposes of modifying Emma’s microwave / refrigerator combination to include Smith’s smoke sensor to be operatively connected with its cooking area and to include Butt’s smoke sensor and reset functionality.” Id. ¶ 126. Dr. Horenstein explains that inclusion of Butt’s reset functionality with Smith’s smoke sensor operatively connected with the cooking area into Emma would result in such elements merely performing the same function as they do separately, i.e., sensing smoke to withdraw electrical power from an electrical cooking appliance and then re-enabling the electrical cooking appliance. Id. Moreover, Dr. Horenstein testifies that the prior art, for example, Butt, specifically recognized the need to solve the problem of fires in the home started by cooking appliances. Id. ¶ 128 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:22–44). Butt explains, that “[h]ome fires are a serious problem in the United States. The National Fire Protection Association reports that between the years 1999- 2002, for example, there were 114,000 reported home fires associated with cooking alone.” Ex. 1015, 122–25. Similarly, Smith expressly teaches “[a] method and apparatus for anticipating the occurrence of a fire in the cooking cavity of a microwave oven.” Ex. 1014, Abstract.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,674,746 - PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · PGR2024-00003 · APJ Scott A Daniels · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–28 and all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 13, 15, 20, 22, and 24–25 are obvious over Emma, Butt, and Smith.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). A post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] 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) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine, for the reasons set forth below, that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds presented. Therefore, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering . . . [a]lternatively, a POSITA could have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, physics, or a related engineering or discipline, plus at least two years of experience working with control circuits, sensors, kitchen appliances, or similar fields. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 50; Ex. 1023 ¶ 6). Patent Owner provides a similar level of ordinary skill in the art and states that “[t]he differences do not matter for purposes of this Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 4. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’745 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“level of smoke” Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require express construction. See Petition 13–14; Prelim. Resp 5. However, Petitioner contends that for the phrases “level of smoke” and “amount of smoke,” recited in claims 1, 15, and 24, it has “applie[d] what it understands Patent Owner contends is the meaning of this term in this Petition[,] and shows below the claims are invalid under Patent Owner’s construction.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1009, 6). Patent Owner argues that it has “does not offer a special definition” and “asked the [district] court to give these terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 5, n 2. Patent Owner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would similarly understand ‘level of smoke’ when read in the full context of the intrinsic record.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, reading the plain language of the claims in light of the specification, we understand “level of smoke,” or amount of smoke, in the claims generally as a predetermined level of smoke “indicative of a dangerous condition” as the specification of the ’745 patent explains. Ex. 1001, 15:48–49, see also id. at 16:1–2 (The ’745 patent describing “[t]he determination of a level of smoke corresponding to a dangerous condition.”). To the extent the parties disagree, they may expressly address this issue more directly in subsequent briefing. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“from Butt and Smith to Emma’s microwave oven. Pet. 24. Obviousness is not determined from the perspective of the inventors or authors of a single prior art reference. Rather, obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art. It is only that hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent prior art. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Petitioner argues, for instance, that Butt teaches the fire safety aspects of “a controller for interrupting a supply of electricity to an appliance upon detection of a trigger, such as [s]moke.” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1015,1:16– 18). Dr. Horenstein testifies that from a safety perspective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “combine[d] the additional kitchen-safety appliance features of Butt with the Emma microwave/refrigerator so as to enable the Emma microwave to shut down upon the detection of smoke, and to reenable the Emma microwave for a further cooking session when the smoke had cleared.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 124. Where Butt arguably discloses a smoke detector external to an appliance, Dr. Horenstein testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to “Smith to include the smoke sensor in operative connection with the microwave oven with the reset functionality disclosed by Butt for the added benefit of reusing the microwave oven.” Id. ¶ 127 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,674,745 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2023-01434 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’898 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have been a person with a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design. That person would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design (Ex. 1003, ¶45). Alternatively, that person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline (Ex. 1003, ¶45). More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa (Ex. 1003, ¶45). Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s definition 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). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The general rule is that “the indefinite article ‘a’ means ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 64 F.4th 1311 (2023); see also Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“An exception to the general rule that ‘a’ . . . means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.”). And, the use of “the” (as in “the detailed view”) indicates that the recited part of the claim is a reference back to the corresponding part of a previous recitation (i.e., “a detailed view”). Finjan LLC v. SonicWall, Inc., 84 F.4th 963, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Similar to this court’s holding that ‘said’ indicates part of a claim limitation refers to the corresponding part of a previously claimed limitation, . . . , the use of ‘the’ also indicates the claimed term refers to an antecedent term.”). However, whether “a detailed view” means “one or more detailed views” is a separate issue from whether the claims require the same detailed view to have both of the recited components. See Finjan, 84 F.4th at 974 (“[T]hat is a separate issue from whether the claims require the same component to perform multiple functions or satisfy multiple limitations of a claim.”). The plain language of “a detailed view” followed by the recitation of “the detailed view” comprising two components suggests that the “detailed view” must be tied to both of those components. See id. (“In [Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Nokia Sols. & Networks Oy, 15 F.4th 1136, 1143–44 (Fed. Cir. 2021)], we explained that ‘[a]s a matter of plain language, reciting ‘a computer’ (or a ‘first computer’) that performs a function, and then further reciting that ‘the computer’ (or ‘said first computer’) performs multiple additional functions, suggests that such ‘computer’ must be tied to all those functions.’ . . . This same rationale is relevant in analyzing the claims here.”); see also id. (The court agreeing with SonicWall’s argument “that even if the reference to ‘a computer’ may mean ‘one or more computers,’ the subsequent references to ‘the computer’ can only be satisfied by the same ‘one or more computers’ that satisfied the first limitation.”); Salazar, 64 F.4th at 1317 (“We agree with the district court that while the claim term ‘a microprocessor’ does not require there be only one microprocessor, the subsequent limitations referring back to ‘said microprocessor’ require that at least one microprocessor be capable of performing each of the claimed functions.”). We determine that, even if plural detailed views are allowed, the claim requires a single one of those views to have both a graph representation and a selectable data sharing option.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. For the reasons discussed above, we construe independent claims 1 and 23 as requiring the “detailed view” to have both a graph representation and a selectable data sharing option. See supra Section II.C. Petitioner does not identify adequately any disclosure in Molettiere of displaying a single view having both components. Thus, Petitioner has not shown adequately that Molettiere is anticipatory. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not articulate adequately any obviousness contentions regarding how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relied-on figures of Molettiere to arrive at the recited detailed view having both components. See Prelim. Resp. 9–10; Pet. 10–14. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to independent claim 1 and independent claim 23 as anticipated by or obvious over Molettiere. For the same reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to dependent claims 2– 11, 18, 20–22, 25–34, 41, and 43–45 as anticipated by or obvious over Molettiere. E. The Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 16, 18, 23, 26, 32, 33,” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,270,898 - Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01434 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 and 15 are unpatentable over Chung and Olmos-based obviousness grounds; claims 10–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach the claimed complementary relationship.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“improperly incorporates-by-reference 12 pages of expert testimony via a single sentence.” PO Sur-reply 16 n.2 (citing Pet. Reply 17, which in turn cites Ex. 1026 (Hatch Decl.) ¶¶ 49–66). We find that many of the paragraphs within the cited range (i.e., Hatch Declaration paragraphs 49–66) appear to have a tenuous connection to the proposition for which Petitioner cites these paragraphs. See Pet. Reply 17. That said, we find that paragraphs 53–55 directly relate to Petitioner’s proposition in the Reply, i.e., that “Petitioner’s experts explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would rely on a cross-sectional view over a perspective view for making the determination in question, because only the cross-sections provide the needed side view directly orthogonal to the positions of the yellow expansion portion and the end of the dovetail.” Id. Accordingly, we find that paragraphs 53–55—the only paragraphs we cite from Petitioner’s range in reaching our conclusion—are not improperly incorporated by reference into Petitioner’s Reply.” slip op. at 66
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“provide Petitioner an opportunity to respond under the new construction, and decline to strike Petitioner’s relevant argument and evidence. Cf. Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1383 (“[W]hen the Board adopts a new claim construction following institution, an IPR petitioner must have adequate notice and an opportunity to respond under the new construction.”). Like in Axonics, in its new arguments on Reply, Petitioner here relies on the same embodiment from the same prior art reference that it relies on in the Petition to support the same legal argument, i.e., that Olmos’s Figure 16 embodiment discloses the “complementary with one another” limitation of challenged claims 10– 14. See Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1384; see also Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (permitting petitioner to elaborate in reply on an unpatentability theory presented in the petition). Moreover, we permitted Patent Owner to file (and it indeed did file) a sur-reply brief and expert declaration that addressed Petitioner’s new obviousness theories. Accordingly, both parties had adequate notice of our preliminary construction and an opportunity to respond under that new construction. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to strike.” slip op. at 124
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“from the expansion portion. We agree with Patent Owner that the wording of this limitation as a whole requires that the “extension necessarily must protrude beyond a longitudinal end of the expansion portion.” Id. at 11. We also agree with Patent Owner that “[u]nder Petitioner’s tenuous theory, an extension in any direction except 90 or 180 degrees would satisfy the claim language since any such direction has a so-called ‘longitudinal component.’” Id. at 13. For these reasons, we disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the purported “longitudinal component” of Chung’s extension satisfies limitation 1[h].” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“would have been motivated to add an extension to the Figure 16 embodiment because “an integrally-formed extension advantageously requires fewer parts, which facilitates both manufacturing and use.” Pet. 118. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument is unavailing. PO Resp. 50. Petitioner’s combination entails adding an extension (from Figure 8) to an embodiment lacking one (Figure 16). We agree with Patent Owner that adding a new component (whether separately or integrally) can in some instances complicate manufacturing/assembly and increase costs. See id. (citing Ex. 2013 (Culbert Decl.) ¶ 115). Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed combination in this instance would reduce complexity or facilitate the manufacturing process. Accordingly, we do not rely on this argument offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 106
Patent outcomesUS 8,845,731 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,845,731 - PTAB · Feb 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01298 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Chell anticipates at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). A decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have possessed a strong understanding in the use and development of genetics and genomics approaches for detecting or monitoring human diseases, such as spatial detection of a target analyte (e.g., mRNA or DNA) in a tissue, and would typically have a Ph.D. in a relevant field (e.g., molecular biology, genetics, and bioinformatics) with two years of experience. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–25). For the purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not provide its own proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s unchallenged definition as it is consistent with the cited prior art and disclosure of the ’689 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“a) contacting the tissue sample with a plurality of nucleic acid probes, wherein each of the nucleic acid probes comprise a target binding domain that binds to the at least one target analyte, wherein the tissue sample [has been] is treated to facilitate binding of the nucleic acid probes to the target analyte b/c) collecting the nucleic acid probes, or portions thereof, bound to the at least one target analyte in a first/second location of the tissue sample under conditions that release the nucleic acid probes, or portions thereof, from the first/second location of the tissue sample d/e) performing an extension reaction that incorporates at least one nucleic acid sequence that identifies the first/second location of the tissue sample into each of the nucleic acid probes, or portions thereof, collected in step (b), thereby forming a first plurality of extension products that comprise the nucleic acid probes, or portions thereof, collected in step (b) and the at least one nucleic acid sequence that identifies the first/second location of the tissue sample Ex. 1001, 145:51–147:11 (emphasis added). Thus, according to claim 1, the “nucleic acid probe” must 1) comprise a target binding domain that binds to the at least one target analyte, 2) be bound to the at least one target analyte; 3) be released in whole or as a portion, and 4) have a location-identifying nucleic acid sequence incorporated into it through an extension reaction. Steps a), b), and c) occur in relation to the target analyte, while steps d) and e) occur after the probe is” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We further interpret “collecting the nucleic acid probes” to mean “releasing all or a portion of the nucleic acid probe bound to the at least one target analyte through application of a force followed by retrieval of the released probe or portion of the probe.” The question then becomes whether So-465, which teaches replication of a probe that was bound and then at least partially released to make genomic amplicons, followed by collection of those genomic amplicons, anticipates collection of probes as recited in claims 1 and 16. On this record, we do not see sufficient evidence that the genomic amplicons disclosed in So-456 that Petitioner identifies as “captured” were ever “bound to the analyte” in part or in whole as required by the claim language, but rather were amplified in situ from the probe or partial probe that was released. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 181–183. In particular, the process of So-456 differs from the ’689 patent claims in that the extension reaction to incorporate the tissue-identifying nucleic acid sequence in So-465 occurs after the identifier nucleotide is cleaved from the tissue sample. “Anticipation requires that all of the claim elements and their limitations are shown in a single prior art reference.” In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Petitioner has not demonstrated that So-456 teaches this claim limitation or otherwise demonstrates that this limitation would have been inherent in the disclosure of So-456 for claims 1 and 16. For these reasons, on this record we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that So-456 anticipates either of independent claims 1 or 16.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,377,689 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00949 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 11–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kim anticipates or renders obvious at least claims 11, 14, 16, and 19.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Our Trial Practice Guide explains that, as is the case here, for parallel petitions challenging the same patent “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. The CTPG also recognizes “that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. The CTPG provides some exemplary reasons for multiple petitions, for instance “when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. The CTPG further compels a petitioner filing multiple petitions to identify: (1) a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits, if the Board uses its explanation of the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id. at 60. We focus our analysis on part (2) and “why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions.” Id.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceeding, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require construction. See generally, Petition; Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision where no claim terms are in dispute we need not explicitly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’619 patent would have been a person with a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies, a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, and training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies. Pet. 8 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38). Petitioner also asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not expressly address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’619 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,866,619 - Wellmatics, LLC / GR Energy Services Management, LP et al. v. Canatex Completions Solutions, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01149 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner “does not dispute” these qualifications. Prelim. Resp. 10. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’122 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the example of “a fluid line that provides gas or liquid to expansion chamber 38 from [the] surface” in the specification, does not require that a fluid line be a source of fluid pressure. We further agree that Petitioner’s analysis ignores the fact that this example makes clear that the source of fluid pressure is at the surface. Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 66–67). Both Patent Owner and Petitioner agree that “source” should be construed in accordance with its ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 13, 18; Pet. 18–19 (Patent Owner has not “identified any clear definition or clear and unambiguous disclaimer that would justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the claim language.”). ordinary meaning of “source.”2 See Prelim. Resp. 13–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:55–65, 4:5–12, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 52–63, Ex. 2003, 7, 8, Ex. 2004, 5, Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 29–30, Fig. 1, Ex. 2006, 4:64–5:9, Fig. 1, Ex. 2007, 13:23–35, Ex. 2009, Abstr., 3:54–60, Ex. 2010. Patent Owner provides dictionary and declaratory evidence that the ordinary meaning of “source” is ‘“origin’— i.e., the place from which something originates.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 52, Ex. 2003, 7, 8, Ex. 2004, 5). Patent Owner provides further evidence and explanation as to why that definition is consistent with the usage of “source of fluid pressure” in the ’122 patent. Id. at 13–15 (citing e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:55–65, 4:5–12). Patent Owner provides further evidence of how the term “source” is used in other patents and documents “in the oil and gas industry” that is consistent with its definition. Id. at 15–18 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57–63, Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 29–30, Fig. 1, Ex. 2006, 4:64–5:9, Fig. 1, Ex. 2007, 13:23–35, Ex. 2009, Abstr., 3:54–60, Ex. 2010). Thus, based on the current record, we construe “source of fluid pressure” to mean the place from which the fluid pressure originates.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“As noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s declarant merely asserts that Bebak’s hydraulic pump would have been considered part of the second part of a releasable connection, and thus it is entitled to little weight. Prelim. Resp. 28; see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper No. 9 at 15 (Aug 24, 2022) (precedential) (“Dr. Jones does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Thus, the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight.”) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). For all of the above reasons, we determine that the Petition does not provide a reasonable basis to determine that Bebak teaches “a second part [of the releasable connection] comprising: . . . a source of fluid pressure,” as required by independent claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,794,122
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.