• Stryker Corporation / Wright Medical Technology, Inc v. Osteomed LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2026 · IPR2021-01452 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 6, 8, 9, 13, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2–5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable over Slater or Slater and Weaver.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, for the same reasons expressed by our previous decision addressing claim 8 of the ’085 patent, and the court’s analysis in Stryker, we conclude that Slater does not anticipate claims 2–5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 of the ’716 patent because Slater deliberately describes a variable angle hole that lacks a single predetermined angle—that is, Slater describes a transfixation screw hole that does not have a central axis defining the trajectory.” slip op. at 14

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

    “In its Petition, Petitioner contends that Weaver discloses the limitations in claim 6 and that it would have been obvious to add Weaver’s features to Slater’s plate to provide a more secure fixation between the screws and the plate. Pet. 36–39; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 188–196. Specifically, Petitioner contends that configuring Slater’s transfixation screw hole (claim 6) or at least one of Slater’s attachment points (claim 8) as a threaded screw hole to lockably engage the head of a locking screw would have been an obvious design choice “because locking screws ‘provide a high resistance to shear or torsional forces’ and reduce the incidence of screw loosening.” Pet. 39 (quoting Ex. 1009, 1:57–58); Ex. 1009, 1:46–48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 191– 196. Petitioner otherwise relies on its anticipation analysis for claim 1 discussed above. Pet. 36.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,763,716 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,763,716
• Stryker Corporation / Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Osteomed LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2026 · IPR2021-01450 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 6, 8–10, 14, and 17 are unpatentable; claims 2–5, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable, based on anticipation by Slater and obviousness over Slater and Weaver.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Stryker Corp. v. OsteoMed LLC, No. 2023-1925, 2025 WL 2814019 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025) (“Stryker”) (Paper 49),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating and remanding-in-part our Final Written Decision (Paper 46) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding of no anticipation as to independent claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,529,608 B2 (“the ’608 patent,” Ex. 1001), and vacated and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether dependent claims 2–6, 8–10, 12–14, and 17 (the “Remanded Claims”) are similarly unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s challenges relying on the Slater reference. Stryker, slip op. at 14–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We issue this Final Written Decision on Remand pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in an inter partes review involving Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) and OsteoMed LLC (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the entirety of the record in light of the Federal Circuit’s directives in Stryker, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6, 8–10, 14, and 17 are unpatentable. We also conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2–5, 12, and 13 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, for the same reasons expressed by our previous decision addressing claim 8 of the ’085 patent, and the court’s analysis in Stryker, we conclude that Slater does not anticipate claims 2–5, 12, and 13 of the ’608 patent because Slater deliberately describes a variable angle hole that lacks a single predetermined angle—that is, Slater describes a transfixation screw hole that does not have a central axis defining the trajectory.” slip op. at 13

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

    “limitations in claim 6 and that it would have been obvious to add Weaver’s features to Slater’s plate to provide a more secure fixation between the screws and the plate. Pet. 37–39; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 161–169. Specifically, Petitioner contends that configuring Slater’s transfixation screw hole (claim 6) or at least one of Slater’s attachment points (claim 8) as a threaded screw hole to lockably engage the head of a locking screw would have been an obvious design choice “because locking screws ‘provide a high resistance to shear or torsional forces’ and reduce the incidence of screw loosening.” Pet. 39 (quoting Ex. 1009, 1:57–58); Ex. 1009, 1:46–48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162– 163. Petitioner otherwise relies on its anticipation analysis for claim 1 discussed above. Pet. 37. Patent Owner raised no separate argument regarding the patentability of claims 6 and 8, instead relying solely on its argument that Slater does not anticipate independent claim 1, on which claims 6 and 8 depend. PO Resp. 46; Reply 4 (“Patent Owner does not challenge the combination of Slater and Weaver for claims 6 and 8.”). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the undisputed limitations of claims 6 and 8 and find that Petitioner establishes that the combination of Slater and Weaver discloses all of the limitations of claims 6 and 8, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Slater and Weaver for the reasons provided by Petitioner. We adopt Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to these limitations as our own. See Pet. 37–39.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,608 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,608
• Stryker Corporation / Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Osteomed LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2026 · IPR2021-01451 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 6, 8, 9, and 13 were held unpatentable; claims 2–5, 11, and 12 were not shown unpatentable because Slater lacks the claimed central axis.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “addressing the ’085 patent and by the court’s analysis in Stryker, we conclude that Slater does not anticipate claims 2–5, 11, and 12 of the ’776 patent because Slater deliberately describes a variable angle hole that lacks a single predetermined angle—that is, Slater describes a transfixation screw hole that does not have a central axis defining the trajectory.” slip op. at 13

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

    “In its Petition, Petitioner contends that Weaver discloses the limitations in claim 6 and that it would have been obvious to add Weaver’s features to Slater’s plate to provide a more secure fixation between the screws and the plate. Pet. 36–39; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–74. Specifically, Petitioner contends that configuring Slater’s transfixation screw hole (claim 6) or at least one of Slater’s attachment points (claim 8) as a threaded screw hole to lockably engage the head of a locking screw would have been an obvious design choice “because locking screws ‘provide a high resistance to shear or torsional forces’ and reduce the incidence of screw loosening.” Pet. 39 (quoting Ex. 1009, 1:57–58); Ex. 1009, 1:46–48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169– 74. Petitioner otherwise relies on its anticipation analysis for claim 1 discussed above. Pet. 36.” slip op. at 17

  • RemandOther

    “Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Stryker Corp. v. OsteoMed LLC, No. 2023-1925, 2025 WL 2814019 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025) (“Stryker”) (Paper 49),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating and remanding-in-part our Final Written Decision (Paper 46, “FWD”) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding of no anticipation as to independent claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent 9,351,776 B2 (“the ’776 patent,” Ex. 1001), and vacated and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether dependent claims 2–6 and 8, 9 and 11–13 (the “Remanded Claims”) are unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s challenges relying on the Slater reference. Stryker, slip op. 14– 15.” slip op. at 2

  Patent outcomesUS 9,351,776 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,351,776
• Toyota Motor Corp. v. Emerging Automotive LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00786 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10, 11, 13–16 were held unpatentable: claims 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 as anticipated by Xiao, and claim 14 as obvious over Xiao and Singh.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “arguments, we agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction that requires the server to conduct a compatibility check. We start with the express claim language. Claim 10 recites: determining, by the server, applicable settings for the selected vehicle, the applicable settings being settings that are preferred to be set as identified from the user profile and are compatible with settings that are settable in the selected vehicle. Ex. 1001, 33:10–14 (emphases added). The express claim language requires that the server determine applicable settings. Those applicable settings, determined by the server, must also be compatible with vehicle settings. As such, the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language expressly requires that the server make a determination of applicable settings that are defined as being compatible with vehicle settings.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’268 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or closely related field, with at least two-to-four-years-experience in cloud services for settings customization, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See, generally PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal because it is reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “However, contrary to Dr. Almeroth’s testimony and Petitioner’s position, Xiao’s server already does not attempt to command vehicles to do things they cannot do. Xiao teaches that server 118 generates commands for command codes that exist and are settable in the vehicle. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102– 103. As such, if there is no corresponding automobile setting, then Xiao’s server would not list those command codes for retrieval and would not send a command based on that retrieved command code to control the automobile systems to achieve the operator’s desired settings because that command code is not in the database. Our understanding of Xiao is further supported by Dr. Almeroth’s testimony: By listing them in the table of automobile command code information 606, Xiao shows that there are particular settings compatible with particular automobiles and particular desired settings. Thus, Xiao demonstrates the necessarily present characteristic that certain settings (e.g., commands) are compatible with certain automobiles. Ex. 1009 ¶ 96 (emphases added). We note that Dr. Malek further explains “the nonsensical result achieved by the combination would be that Xiao’s server, at best, in response to the command request issued by the operator, could ‘look up’ a command code to apply a vehicle-specific setting to that automobile 112, only to find that there is ‘none.’” We agree with Dr. Malek that there is a “None” command code in Xiao’s database when Xiao’s database already stores settings that are known to be settable in a specific vehicle per the operator’s preferences. Ex. 2011 ¶ 135. Thus, based on the complete record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Xiao in combination with Hayashi render claim 10 obvious.” slip op. at 79

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Anticipation is not an ipsissimis verbis test, but “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal, 814 F.2d at 631. Petitioner and Dr. Almeroth both acknowledge that Xiao discloses operators on the same account. Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1009 ¶ 170. But Petitioner and Dr. Almeroth do not explain sufficiently how Xiao discloses these operators have sub-user accounts. Petitioner further contends Xiao discloses plurality of accounts. Pet. Reply 18–19 (citing Ex. 1024, 33:1–44:10, 45:22–46:2); Ex. 1010 ¶ 65. Again, Petitioner has not adequately explained how the plurality of accounts includes sub-user accounts because Xiao discloses generally that multiple operators of a vehicle are on the same, single account. Ex. 1010 ¶ 66.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 9,171,268 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,171,268
• Stryker Corporation / Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Osteomed LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01453 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: Slater anticipates claims 1–3, 6, and 7, and Slater with Weaver renders claims 4 and 5 obvious; claims 8 and 9 remain patentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “summarized above, we determine that Patent Owner has the better position. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reliance on the new declaration from Dr. Holmes goes beyond the bounds of permissible argument and evidence in reply. See PO Sur-reply 11–14. The 23-page declaration goes into detail as to how a surgeon would use Falkner’s plate when spanning two bones. See Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 20–36. While some of these opinions are certainly responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Sommers, much if not all of the material could have been included with the Petition. Falkner contains readily apparent shortcomings when it comes to its two-bone embodiment because it devotes only a sentence, and no figures, to this possibility. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 21. Petitioner should have foreseen the potential shortcomings of Falkner as an anticipatory reference and included a declaration from Dr. Holmes with the Petition. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”), 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”), 74–75 (“It is also improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.”). Without the supporting testimony of Dr. Holmes, Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply lack adequate support and Patent Owner’s arguments in its Response are largely unrebutted.” slip op. at 51

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “summarized above, we determine that Patent Owner has the better position. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reliance on the new declaration from Dr. Holmes goes beyond the bounds of permissible argument and evidence in reply. See PO Sur-reply 11–14. The 23-page declaration goes into detail as to how a surgeon would use Falkner’s plate when spanning two bones. See Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 20–36. While some of these opinions are certainly responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Sommers, much if not all of the material could have been included with the Petition. Falkner contains readily apparent shortcomings when it comes to its two-bone embodiment because it devotes only a sentence, and no figures, to this possibility. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 21. Petitioner should have foreseen the potential shortcomings of Falkner as an anticipatory reference and included a declaration from Dr. Holmes with the Petition. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”), 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”), 74–75 (“It is also improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.”). Without the supporting testimony of Dr. Holmes, Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply lack adequate support and Patent Owner’s arguments in its Response are largely unrebutted.” slip op. at 51

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering with at least two years of experience in the field, such as experience with the design of surgical implants, or a clinical practitioner with a medical degree and at least two years of experience as an orthopedic surgeon.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–39). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’085 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, we determine that we need not expressly construe any claim term to resolve any of the challenges we consider in this Decision. 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 to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,245,085 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,245,085
• Xilinx, Inc. / Xilinx Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Analog Devices, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · IPR2020-01564 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–8 were not shown unpatentable; claim 12 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Elbornsson and Jamal, and over Eklund and Jamal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have at least a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field, including studies in designing data converters, and two to five years of relevant experience; or a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 17–18). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation because it is consistent with the ’750 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing 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.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Patent Owner contends that “random clock,” “offset sensing circuit,” and “sensing” a gain or offset signal need to be construed. PO Resp. 13–17. Petitioner contends that no construction of any term is necessary. Reply 2– 5. The contentions of the parties were addressed in our Final Written Decision for IPR2020-01483, which was mailed on the same day as this Decision. We decline to construe these terms for the reasons given in that Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Raychowdhury testifies that, in Jamal’s technique, “the input is de-correlated from the pseudo random chopping sequence.” Ex. 2206 ¶ 64. Then, inexplicably, Dr. Raychowdhury testifies that “Jamal is unambiguous that ‘C[m] is white, has zero mean, and is uncorrelated with the input signal.’” Id. at ¶ 69. Patent Owner does not explain nor even address Dr. Raychowdhury’s inconsistent testimony. Given the inconsistent positions taken by Patent Owner’s expert, and the lack of explanation from Patent Owner, we give no weight to Dr. Raychowdhury’s testimony.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Even were we to accept Petitioner’s contention, that a ‘“random clock’ can be satisfied by a 1-bit pseudo-random bit sequence,” (Pet. 36), Jamal discloses that the alleged random clock C[m] “is uncorrelated with the input signal.” Ex. 1205, 8. A chopping SHA multiplies the input signal and the uncorrelated random signal C[m], then provides a chopped analog signal to the ADC converter. Id. Petitioner has not persuasively shown that chopping an input signal with an uncorrelated random signal, then providing the chopped signal to a converter as disclosed by Jamal, describes “said random clock configured to decorrelate an input signal provided to said first converter from said random clock” as recited in claim 1. We find that claim 1 is not unpatentable based on Jamal. Because claims 2 and 4–6 depend from claim 1, we find that these claims are also not unpatentable based on Jamal.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,900,750 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,900,750
• Medtronic, Inc. And Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2022 · IPR2020-01343 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 52 and 53 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ressemann; the other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable because Itou is not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Documents are authenticated by evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a); see Fox Factory v. SRAM, LLC, IPR2016-01876, Paper 59 at 63 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2018) (quoting same). “Authenticity is, therefore, not an especially high hurdle for a party to overcome.” Fox Factory, Paper 59 at 63 (citing United States v. Patterson, 277 F.3d 709, 713 (4th Cir. 2002)). We determine that Exhibit 2024 has been authenticated under the low bar required under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 based on the evidence provided by Petitioner. See Mot. Opp. 2–11. In addition, Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. We note, however, that even if we were to exclude Exhibit 2024, it would not change the outcome or our general analysis of this case.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been either: (1) a medical doctor who would have had “(a) a medical degree; (b) completed a coronary intervention cardiologist;” or (2) an engineer who would have had “(a) an undergraduate degree in engineering, such as mechanical or biomedical engineering; and (b) at least three years of experience designing medical devices, including catheters or catheter-deployable devices.” Pet. 13–14. Additionally, Petitioner contends “[e]xtensive experience and technical training might substitute for education, and advanced degrees might substitute for experience.” Id. at 14. Further, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a medical degree” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “with an engineering degree” may have had access to each other. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 31; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 18–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 5. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as it is undisputed and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the specification of the ’116 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “Petitioner proposes the following constructions: (1) “substantially rigid” as “rigid enough to allow the device to be advanced within the guide catheter,” (2) “side opening” needs no construction and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, (3) “lumen” as “the cavity of a tube,” and (4) “flexural modulus” as “[a] measure of resistance . . . to bending.” 7 Patent Owner argues that Dr. Hillstead does not meet the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because he lacks a four-year undergraduate degree in engineering. PO Resp. 5 n.1 (citing, e.g., Ex. 2137, 462:8–13). As noted above, however, it is undisputed that “[e]xtensive experience and technical training might substitute for education.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not address Dr. Hillstead’s significant professional experience, which we find sufficient to show he is qualified to opine on the issues in this proceeding from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1043 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Hillstead). does not dispute at this stage of the proceeding Petitioner’s proposed construction of these terms. See generally PO Resp. In view of the issues we address below, we determine it is not necessary to address the express interpretation of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 19

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

    “Ressemann. Pet. 23–31. Petitioner provides a detailed explanation of how it contends Ressemann discloses each of the limitations of claims 52 and 53. Id. In particular, Petitioner explains how Ressemann’s disclosures of the use of features including guide catheter 160, evacuation sheath assembly 100, intermediate shaft portion 120, distal shaft portion 130, lumen 140, and stent delivery system 194 correspond to the recited methods of claims 52 and 53. Id. Petitioner’s contentions are supported by Dr. Brecker and Dr. Hillstead. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 164–174; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 36–39, 58–62. Patent Owner does not dispute that claims 52 and 53 are anticipated by Ressemann. See generally PO Resp; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. Reply 2 (Petitioner arguing that Patent Owner did not dispute that Ressemann anticipates claims 52 and 53). After reviewing the record, we find Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Ressemann discloses each limitations (Pet. 23–31) as our own findings. Accordingly, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Ressemann anticipates claims 52 and 53 of the ’116 patent.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS RE46,116 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Canon Inc. / Canon U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Avigilon Fortress CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2019 · IPR2017-01837 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 and 23–37 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 20–22 were not shown unpatentable. The contingent motion to amend was denied in part and dismissed in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “For the foregoing reasons, we find Patent Owner has not shown sufficient written description support for the proposed added claim language that requires detection of a tracked object from one side of a tripwire line segment to another. As such, we determine that proposed substitute claims 38–56 and 60–74 improperly introduce new matter under 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii) and we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend as it relates to proposed substitute claims 38–56 and 60– 74. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we deny-in-part and dismiss-in-part Patent Owner’s motion to amend.” slip op. at 73

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Dr. Papanikolopoulos’s Declaration in support of Petitioners’ Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Ex. 1036) as an improper attempt to incorporate declaration arguments into the opposition brief to avoid page limits. Mot. Exc. 7–8. We disagree with this argument. Contrary to Patent Owner’s characterization, the opposition brief provides a sufficient discussion of the cited portions of Dr. Papanikolopoulos’s declaration and explains the significance of the testimony. In light of this, we conclude that Petitioner has not improperly incorporated by reference declaration testimony to avoid page limitations. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1036 for improper incorporation by reference.” slip op. at 74

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

    “E. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 1–10 by Winter Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a “computer system . . . for performing calibration.” As stated above in Section II.C.2., we construe this phrase as a means plus function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner does not provide any argument that Winter teaches a “computer system . . . for performing calibration” under this construction. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Winter discloses each and every limitation of claim 1. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1, and claims 2–10 which depend therefrom, are anticipated by Winter. F.” slip op. at 37

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

    “segmenting steps as recited in claims 19, 27, and 29 because (1) Winter does not teach pixel-level modeling and (2) a POSITA would not combine Winter and Olson. Id. at 59, 61. We disagree with these arguments because Petitioner relies upon Olson, not Winter, for teaching pixel-level modeling. Accordingly, as explained in Section II.F.1., we find that Petitioner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the teachings of Winter and Olson. Claims 2–10, 23–26, 28, 30, 33, and 35–37 Petitioner contends that Winter and Olson teach the additional limitations of dependent claims 2–10, 23–26, 28, 30, 33, and 35–37. Pet. 32– 40, 42–50. Other than arguments relating to the patentability of the base claims from which claims 2–10, 23–26, 28, 8, 30, 33, and 35–37 depend, Patent Owner does separately argue the patentability of the dependent claims. See generally PO Resp. Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence and agree with Petitioner and find that Winter and Olson teach the subject matter of claims 2–10, 23–26, 28, 30, 33, and 35–37. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis as to these claim elements. Based on the record developed during trial, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–10, 18, 19, 23–33 and 35–37 would have been obvious over Winter and Olson. Summary For the foregoing reasons, we find Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11, 18, 19, 23–33, and 33–37 would have been obvious over Winter and Olson. We find, however, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 20–22 would have been obvious over Winter and Olson. G. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–10 and 25–32 over Winter, Olson, and Togashi Petitioner contends that claims 1–10 and 25–32 over would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Winter, Olson, and Togashi. Petitioner contends that to the extent the claims require a more detailed algorithm for a tripwire beyond Winter’s disclosure, Togashi’s teaching of an algorithm used to detect when an object overlaps a line makes up for any deficiencies. Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1006, 2–3, Figs. 1, 8; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117, 345), 58 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 420–422), 61, 63–64. Specifically, Petitioner contends that Togashi teaches a more detailed algorithm for detecting when an object overlaps a line (tripwire) by comparing the pixel luminance of the line between a background image at time t=t0 and a new image at time t=t1, generating a difference value for each pixel, binarizing each pixel into “0” or “1” based on a predetermined threshold value, and determining that an object overlaps the line if the number of pixels on the line having the value “1” is greater than a threshold number. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1007, 4, Figs. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d)). Petitioner further contends that it” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 6,696,945 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,696,945
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02139 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis”) timely submitted a Petition presenting substantially the same challenges as set forth in Pfizer’s Petition along with a request for joinder to IPR2017-01488. IPR2017- 02139. Paper 1. We granted Bioepis’s Petition and associated request for joinder to this case. IPR2017-02139, Paper 11, 6–7.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

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

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner. 11 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest: Tabulation and Analysis of Amino Acid and Nucleic Acid Sequences of Precursors, V- Regions, C-Regions, J-Chain, T-Cell Receptor for Antigen, T-Cell Surface Antigens β2-Microglobulin, Major Histocompatibility Antigens, Thy-1 Complement, C-Reactive Protein, Thymopoietin, Post-Gamma Globulin, and α2-Macroblobulin, 41–175 (4th Ed. 1987). Ex. 1052. See PO Resp. 47. Moreover, in a parallel proceeding involving the same patent, Patent Owner did not dispute that the reference to “all sequences” in the patent, “refer[s] to all known sequences and there’s no dispute . . . that was really synonymous with Kabat 1987.” See IPR2017-01374 Paper 82, Tr. 15:4–16:4; see Ex. 1202 ¶ 157; Ex. 2105 ¶¶ 24–25; Ex. 2107 ¶¶ 18–19; Ex. 1198, 56:20–61:24; Ex. 1199, 27:14–28:13, 29:25–36:2, 57:1–58:6, 115:7–17, 165:17–169:9. Indeed, in a similar parallel proceeding, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term “all human immunoglobulins” refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” IPR2017-01373, Paper 83, 47:21–48:5. Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ proposed construction, with a clarifying modification, specifically, “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure, as set forth in Kabat 1987.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient.” In our institution decision, we determined that this claim language “refer[s] to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” Dec. 10–12. Neither party disputes this interpretation. See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 5–6. Consistent with claim 63’s express comparison between the immunogenicity of the claimed humanized antibody and that of its non-human parent, the Specification states that one object of the invention is to “to provide methods for the preparation of antibodies which are less antigenic in humans than non-human antibodies but have desired antigen binding and other characteristics and activities.” Ex. 1001, 4:24–28. The Specification similarly states that embodiments within the scope of the claims have “low immunogenicity,” or are designed to “minimize the potential immunogenicity of the resulting humanized antibody in the clinic.” Id. at 52:54–58, 61:56–61. Moreover, with reference to claim 63 in particular, Patent Owner points to the ’272 application as “explain[ing] that the purpose of humanizing antibodies using its consensus sequence approach is to reduce immunogenicity versus the non-human parent antibody. (Id., 6:24–30, 84:24–30.).” Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2032 (File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/715,272 (“the ’272 application”)); see also id. at 38 (indicating that the limitation is satisfied where “[o]nly 1 out of 885 patients experienced an immunogenic response . . . which was a substantial improvement over the murine 4D5 antibody”). In light of the above, we do not alter our prior determination that “[a] humanized antibody which lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient,” refers to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-01488 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “humanized” (claims 1, 30, 62–64, 66, 79, 80); “and further comprising a Framework Region (FR) amino acid substitution at a site selected from the group consisting of” (claims 1, 30, 62, 63, 66, 79, and 80); “numbering system set forth in Kabat” (claims 1, 30, 62, 63, 66, 79, and 80); and “up to 3-fold more” (claim 65). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed constructions, but asserts that “[n]o construction of those terms is necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 19; PO Resp. 19. On the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that the terms identified by Petitioners need not be construed to resolve the issues presently before us. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (instructing that claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “substitutions, most being unrepresented in any ’272 embodiment.” Pet. Reply 8. We do not find Petitioners’ argument persuasive in light of Patent Owner’s evidence showing that the ’272 application discloses, inter alia, each of the framework substitutions recited in claims 12, 42, 60, 65, 71, 73– 74, and 79 (collectively, 66L, 71H, 73H, 78H, 93H), along with “a generalized scheme for humanizing any non-human antibody.” See PO Resp. 43–44 (citing Ex. 2032, 87–90, 93; Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 91–95).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213

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.