• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Corteva Agriscience LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01014 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not show claims 1–8 unpatentable because they are entitled to the 2004 priority date, making Barbour unavailable as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “For a claim to a biological material, the enablement requirement of § 112, first paragraph, does not require such assured access to a microorganism deposit as of the filing date; what is required is assurance of access (to the microorganism culture by the public upon issuance of a patent on the application) prior to or during the pendency of the application, so that, upon issuance of a U. S. patent on the application, the public will, in fact, receive something in return for the patent grant. Feldman, 517 F.2d at 1355. Patent Owner has persuaded us that such exception not only applies to a deposit, but also extends to a biological material known and readily available. See 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081. In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art. Because all of Petitioner’s challenges rely on Barbour (Pet. 6), all those challenges fail.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art. Because all of Petitioner’s challenges rely on Barbour (Pet. 6), all those challenges fail.” slip op. at 15

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

    “would understand that the term “‘flanked by’ permits overlap between the expression cassette and the DNA sequence it is flanked by.” Pet. 24–26. Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction. PO Resp. 6–7. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any claim term.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,901,378 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,901,378
• CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · PGR2021-00054 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Remand

  Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable because Sample C was not proven publicly available as prior art, and the original decision found the remaining grounds insufficient.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s evidence in Kuntz (Ex. 1026), the Annual Report (Ex. 1028), Masuko (Ex. 1029), and Pfaff (Ex. 1034) is insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public before the effective filing date of the ’861 patent. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26. Kuntz, the Annual Report, Masuko, and Pfaff may support a finding that the Xirallic® line of products was available to the public, but these documents do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public. We also agree with Patent Owner that the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010), Certificates of Analysis (Exs. 1011–1017), and Material Safety Data Sheet (Ex. 1025) are insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26–27. Regardless of how the Technical Data Sheets were used in the Opposition against the European counterpart of the ’861 patent (Exs. 1040, 1041) and during the prosecution of the application from which the ’861 patent issued (Ex. 1003, 102–104), the Technical Data Sheets do not refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Moreover, as noted by Patent Owner, the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010) indicate that they are “preliminary” and Petitioner has not provided any evidence that the Technical Data Sheets were ever issued to the public, as opposed to just issued internally. See PO Resp. 18–19. We also find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the Technical Data Sheets are preliminary because other, later-dated technical data sheets (Exs. 2012, 2013) lack the “preliminary” label and list characteristics that are different from those in Exhibits 1005–1010. See PO Resp. 19 (comparing, e.g., Ex. 1009 and Ex. 2013; Ex. 1005 and Ex. 2012). The Technical Data Sheets may support a finding that the Xirallic® products they describe existed as of the dates on the documents, but they do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “witnesses. See Elbit Systems of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., 620 F. App’x 916, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856 (1982)). We have reviewed the witness testimony in the record and, more particularly, Mr. Choi’s deposition answers regarding Petitioner’s purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C came. We find that Mr. Choi’s responses cast doubt on the credibility of his declaration testimony, namely with regard to the public availability of Sample C. Mr. Choi represented that he was involved in the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Ex. 2011, 48:1–23. Mr. Choi stated that he instructed Petitioner’s marketing team manager to buy the sample from a distributor of Patent Owner’s products located in Europe. Id. at 48:24–49:4. Mr. Choi stated that he has evidence of the transaction, but refused to reveal the name of the company from which Petitioner purportedly purchased the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 49:5–50:3) and refused to produce an email in his possession that would corroborate his testimony regarding Petitioner’s acquisition of the product (id. at 50:8–16, 51:10–23). Mr. Choi represented that he does not remember how much Petitioner paid for Sample B. Id. at 56:4–5. Mr. Choi admitted that the entity from which Petitioner acquired the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken is “not currently a Merck distributor” (Ex. 2011, 50:4–7) and was not “a Merck distributor at the time” that “samples B and C were purchased” (id. at 51:25–52:2). According to Mr. Choi, the company is a “former distributor” of Patent Owner’s products. Id. at 52:3–6. Mr. Choi did not know, according to his testimony, when that unnamed entity first obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:7–10) and he stated that he did not have personal knowledge of how the entity obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:12–19). Instead, Mr. Choi assumed the entity was “able to obtain the sample through the routine course or process” the entity uses “to take samples or get samples.” Id. at 52:12–19. Mr. Choi believed the sample of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was sealed when Petitioner received it because samples from dealers are sealed, and he remembered observing that the package was from a dealer. Id. at 52:24– 54:25. However, Mr. Choi admitted that he did not obtain a technical data sheet or certificate of analysis for the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken. Id. at 59:6–11. Mr. Choi also answered questions regarding Petitioner’s purchase of Samples D and H. Ex. 2011, 62:20–66:8, 67:7–9, 73:12–13, 73:17–22. Similar to his testimony regarding Samples B and C, Mr. Choi admitted withholding an email regarding the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken. Id. at 62:20–63:9. Mr. Choi also admitted that he did not know how Akzo USA or Axalta obtained the Xirallic® the companies sold to him, and admitted that Akzo USA was not a distributor of Patent Owner’s products at the time Petitioner purchased the product. Id. at 63:10–66:8, 73:17–22. Mr. Choi also admitted that Petitioner did not pay Akzo USA for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken, and did not pay Axalta for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample H was taken. Id. at 67:7–9, 73:12–13. Although Petitioner presents declaration testimony from Mr. Choi representing that he purchased the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken in October 2011 (Ex. 1004 ¶ 16), Mr. Choi’s declaration testimony lacks corroborating evidence, and his deposition testimony does not support that the product was available to the public, as we found in our Final Written Decision. See Final Dec. 27–28. Notably, Petitioner produced corroborating evidence for Mr. Choi’s acquisition of Samples A, H, and I. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 13 (citing Ex. 1047), 18 (citing Exs. 1024, 1025). However, Mr. Choi withheld similar evidence for the Xirallic® lots from which Samples B, C, and D were taken. See Ex. 2011, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 62:20– 63:9; Final Dec. 28. As Patent Owner argues, there is “no information to determine when a contract was established, that there was consideration for the exchange, that the product was available to be delivered when the alleged transaction took place, or even when the product was delivered. Choi has no memory of what was paid for the product.” Sur-Reply 24–25; see also PO Resp. 13–14; PO Br. Rem. 2–4.” slip op. at 34

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on the evidence discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C was available to the public. Regardless of whether a company avoids wasting shelf life of its products (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 15–16), there is no persuasive evidence in the record showing that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was released from quality control and then made available to the public by Patent Owner. Mr. Choi’s testimony shows that Petitioner obtained the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken in an atypical manner (i.e., not from Patent Owner or one of Patent Owner’s current distributors) (Ex. 2011, 49:5–50:7, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 51:25–52:6, 52:12– 19), and there is no evidence in the record to show that the lot of Xirallic® was intended for sale, rather than for experimental use only or for some other restricted use. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C qualifies as prior art against the ’861 patent, and we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’861 patent is unpatentable over the grounds relying on Sample C.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 10,647,861 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,647,861
• Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not proven unpatentable under either §103 ground because the evidence did not show the claimed viewability determination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’329 patent: a person that would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s resurrected argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of § 311(b). Section 311(b) provides: “A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed cancel the claims of the ’329 patent on the basis of Badros, Harkins, and Krassner. Pet. 11. Petitioner did not base its request, in whole or in part, on the Krassner publication. Id. Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner responds that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, “Harkins teaches that its invention can be used in web pages.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶30). Although Petitioner’s citation is off by one paragraph, Petitioner’s response about what Harkins teaches is correct. See Ex. 1004 ¶29 (“The present invention may be implemented for provision of virtually any type of advertising (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet, billboard, etc.) via any type of advertising medium (e.g., newspaper, magazine, radio broadcast, Web pages, billboards, etc.) without departing from the scope of the present invention.”). We find that Harkins is from the same field based on its express statement that it is applicable to “virtually any type of advertising” and “any type of advertising medium,” including “Web pages.” Ex. 1004 ¶29. Further, even if this were insufficient to place Harkins in the same field as the ’329 patent, we find that Harkins is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with which the ’329 patent inventors were involved. In sum, we find that Harkins is analogous art to the ’329 patent.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “Paper 60 (“PO Mot. To Exclude”), 9–10.6 Patent Owner is correct in this regard and, thus, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude with respect to the testimony in the second Smedley Declaration and the Madansky Declaration opining that Badros teaches the determination limitation. Paper 60, 9–12. Petitioner, in its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, argues that Patent Owner’s arguments about the “viewability test” were “surprising.” Paper 62, 8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The “viewability test” is a claim limitation. Petitioner should have anticipated that Patent Owner would argue that limitation. See In re Gardner, 449 F. App’x 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This court has held that when evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight.” (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Univ. of Strathclyde v. 6 Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude seeks to exclude, in part or in whole, Exhibits 1020–1022, 1025–1030, and 1034–1040, which were submitted with Petitioner’s Reply, of which Exhibits 1026 and 1027 are the declaration by Dr. Madansky and the second declaration by Dr. Smedley, respectively. Mot. To Exclude. The Motion to Exclude also seeks to exclude “Exhibits” 1017 and 1018, which are not filed or of record in this case but which are referenced in the Reply. Id. For example, Exhibit 1017 is the Krassner publication, which Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to add to the record as supplemental information. See Paper 21, 3 n.1 (expunging the Krassner publication and stating that it “need not -- and indeed may not -- be re-filed under a new exhibit number”). Apart from the portions of Dr. Smedley’s second declaration and Dr. Madansky’s declaration opining that Badros teaches the “determination” limitation, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot. obviousness determination generally requires a finding that “all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art’.” (citing PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Petitioner argues that “[v]iewability tests were well known for well over a decade prior to the ’329 patent’s priority date.” Reply 9. If that were the case, then Petitioner should have made its argument in the Petition. Section 312(a) of Title 35 is titled “Requirements of Petition,” and it specifies that a petition must identify, among other things, “the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including . . . (B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence and opinions, if the petitioner relies on expert opinions.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon; and . . . the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge.”). Thus, “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.” Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 73 (Nov. 21, 2019).7 Dr. Smedley’s testimony in his second declaration, that “Badros discloses Patent Owner’s ‘viewability test’” (Ex. 1027 ¶11), is clearly evidence to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. The same is true of Dr. Madansky’s testimony that she agrees with Dr. Smedley in this regard. Ex. 1026 ¶4.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,443,329
• Fujifilm Corporation v. Sony CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2018 · IPR2017-01390 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held that claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not establish the claimed volume concentration in the formed magnetic layer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “define the term “volume concentration.” In the context of the ’331 patent, “volume concentration” refers to the volume concentration of the magnetic particles in the formed magnetic layer.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(1) a bachelor’s degree in materials science, physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, and at least five years of experience in the field of magnetic recording, or (2) a Master’s degree or higher in materials science, physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, with an emphasis in magnetic recording, and at least three years of experience in the field of magnetic recording. Pet. 12; Ex. 1017 ¶ 60. Although Patent Owner does not expressly define the appropriate level of skill in the art in the Patent Owner Response or its Supplemental Response, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Bain, presents a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in his declaration that is nearly identical to Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2001 ¶ 44. In view of this, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16

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

    “information, is not sufficient evidence to establish that Mori discloses the “volume concentration” recited in claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute that there is some magnetic alloy present “in the magnetic layer” of Mori. The relevant question, however, is how much and how Mori’s disclosed values were determined. Unlike the term “volume concentration,” for which the parties offered undisputed evidence regarding accepted meanings of the term in the art (i.e., packing fraction and pigment volume concentration), we have not been directed to similar evidence regarding the phrase “fill rate”/“filling rate” in Mori. Thus, although Mori states “[t]he filling rate by volume of the strongly magnetic alloy powder in the magnetic layer can be equal to or higher than 30%” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 11 (emphasis added)), Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence demonstrating that the term “filling rate” in Mori refers to a final product-based value. As a result, we find that this language in Mori does not establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that Mori discloses the “volume concentration” recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combined teachings of Aonuma and Mori disclose or suggest “[a] dual layer magnetic recording medium comprising . . . a magnetic upper recording layer formed over [a] lower support layer, the magnetic upper recording layer comprising a volume concentration of at least about 35% of a primary magnetic particulate pigment,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 16. Ex. 1001, 11:14–20, 12:25–31. Claims 2–15, 17, and 18 depend from claim 1 or claim 16, and, therefore, include the “volume concentration” limitation of claims 1 and 16. As a result, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Aonuma and Mori disclose or suggest each limitation of claims 1–18, and, therefore, has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Aonuma and Mori.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,115,331 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,115,331
• Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2016 · IPR2015-00171 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, and 55–57 were not shown unpatentable: the ’095 patent did not establish the required amount of DME, and JP ’712 did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Based on our analysis of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ’507 patent to speak in terms of effects, not molecules. See PO Resp. 4– 5; Tr. 41:8–16. We, therefore, construe the recitation “distilling [a mixture comprising water, acetic acid, methyl iodide, methyl acetate, methanol, and at least one PRC] to separate the mixture into a plurality of streams, at least one of said streams being a PRC enriched overhead stream comprising dimethyl ether” in step (a) of claim 42 as requiring the presence of dimethyl ether in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being more than trace or insubstantial. Such amount would be, for example, more than the amount produced in a conventional, prior art, low water carbonylation process that used the same initial reactor contents and conditions, and the same processing equipment. We further interpret this language as requiring the presence of DME in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount sufficient to cause (1) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during the extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream (claim 42, step (b)) and (2) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during a subsequent extraction of the raffinate stream, which increase in recoverable methyl iodide would be recognized as more than insubstantial by the ordinary artisan.” slip op. at 42

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Mr. Jones and Dr. Porcelli agree the description in the ’507 patent implies that the inventive process is a low water process. Ex. 1039 ¶ 52; Ex. 2029 ¶ 26. As discussed in Section VI. B., below, these experts further agree that there are differences in the reactants and reaction products produced in high and low water processes. We find both Mr. Jones and Dr. Porcelli are qualified to give an opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, for purposes of this proceeding we adopt Mr. Jones’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and add that the ordinary artisan also would have had a specific understanding of the low water carbonylation process for production of acetic acid and its implementation on an industrial scale.” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded that Mr. Jones’s calculations provide a reliable method of determining the amount of DME present in a methanol carbonylation process. Mr. Miura and Dr. Porcelli agreed that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the presence or amount of a component such as DME in a methanol carbonylation system such as the one described in the ’095 patent. See Ex. 1046, 281:14–22; Ex. 2029 ¶ 112. Dr. Porcelli testified that Mr. Jones’s estimates of DME content in the ’095 patent Example were based on numerous assumptions that rendered his estimations of reactor and distillation overhead DME concentrations meaningless. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 137, 140, 151. Dr. Porcelli testified, for example, that it was “improper and incorrect” for Mr. Jones “to fail to account for DME lost with the vent stream in the reactor, especially because of the high volatility of DME.” Id. ¶ 148. Mr. Miura’s measured amount of DME present in the first overhead in Experiment 1 was less than half the amount Mr. Jones calculated would be present, supporting Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that the loss of DME via the vents would have had a marked impact on the actual amount of DME sent to distillation column 40 (from which the second overhead stream is produced) in the ’095 patent Example. See Ex. 1060 ¶ 153 (“(103 ppm (calc.) vs. 48 ppm (actual)) is likely to due to loss of DME with the vent gas from the splitter condenser, due to the very low boiling point of DME”); see also Ex. 1039 ¶ 99; Ex. 1060 ¶ 121 (wherein Mr. Jones agreed that the loss of DME from the vent stream in the separator (or decanter) after splitter column 14 in the ’095 patent process would be substantial).” slip op. at 56

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

    “In sum, we determine Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ’095 patent describes a process that inherently results in dimethyl ether in a PRC enriched overhead stream (produced by distilling a mixture comprising water, acetic acid, methyl iodide, methyl acetate, methanol, and at least one PRC) in an amount that is (1) more than trace or insubstantial, and (2) sufficient to cause (a) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream and (b) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during a subsequent extraction of the raffinate stream, as required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 42. Absent from the record is any evidence that DME is present in the second overhead in the ’095 patent Example in the amount required by independent claim 42 and its dependent claims 43, 44, 47–51, 53, and 55–57. Petitioner’s challenge with respect to claim 57 is based on obviousness over the combination of the ’095 patent and JP ’712. Petitioner relies on JP ’712 for a teaching that “methyl iodide concentration can be controlled by extraction temperature, . . . and that the concentration[] recited in [claim 57 is] well known in the art.” Pet. 55. Petitioner has not explained how JP ’712 cures the deficiency in the ’095 patent’s failure to describe step (a) of claim 42. Accordingly, we likewise determine Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show unpatentability of claim 57 by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show unpatentability of claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, and 55–57 of the ’507 patent.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 8,076,507 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,076,507
• Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2016 · IPR2015-00173 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 58–60, 67, 69, and 71–72 were not shown unpatentable over the ’095 patent; claim 73 was not shown unpatentable over the ’095 patent and JP ’712 because the required amount of DME was not …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner relies on Mr. Jones’s testimony to establish the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 17. Mr. Jones testified that the person of ordinary skill in the art “as of March 2, 2004, the effective filing date of the ’507 Patent” (Ex. 1039 ¶ 15) would have been a chemist or chemical engineer with an advanced degree, or a Bachelor of Science degree and equivalent work experience (e.g., five years in an industrial setting producing acetic acid, acetic anhydride, or related chemicals), and would have generally understood acetic acid production on an industrial scale including the distillation processes and extraction processes that are used in acetic acid or acetic anhydride production. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood chemical reactions in general, and, particularly, the primary reactions and the side-reactions associated with acetic acid production (id. ¶ 16). Mr. Jones further testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had separations experience, an understanding of industrial-scale processes, and experience in the production of acetic acid, acetic anhydride, or related chemicals. Id. ¶ 17. Dr. Porcelli, testified that he “generally agree[s]” with Mr. Jones’s opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 15; see also Ex. 1065, 65:9–66:5). During cross-examination, however, Dr. Porcelli testified that one of ordinary skill in the art would require, more specifically, an understanding of the low water acetic process and its implementation on an industrial scale. See, e.g., Ex. 1065, 126:18–127:1.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Based on our analysis of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ’507 patent to speak in terms of effects, not molecules. See PO Resp. 4– 5; Tr. 41:8–16. We, therefore, construe the recitation “distilling [a mixture comprising water, acetic acid, methyl iodide, methyl acetate, methanol, and at least one PRC] to separate the mixture into a plurality of streams, at least one of said streams being a PRC enriched overhead stream comprising dimethyl ether” in step (a) of claim 58 as requiring the presence of dimethyl ether in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being more than trace or insubstantial. Such amount would be, for example, more than the amount produced in a conventional, prior art, low water carbonylation process that used the same initial reactor contents and conditions, and the same processing equipment. We further interpret this language as requiring the presence of DME in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount sufficient to cause (1) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during the extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream and (2) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during the subsequent extraction of the first raffinate stream (claim 58, step (b)), which increase in recoverable methyl iodide would be recognized as more than insubstantial by the ordinary artisan.” slip op. at 42

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded that Mr. Jones’s calculations provide a reliable method of determining the amount of DME present in a methanol carbonylation process. Mr. Miura and Dr. Porcelli agreed that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the presence or amount of a component such as DME in a methanol carbonylation system such as the one described in the ’095 patent. See Ex. 1046, 281:14–22; Ex. 2029 ¶ 112. Dr. Porcelli testified that Mr. Jones’s estimates of DME content in the ’095 patent Example were based on numerous assumptions that rendered his estimations of reactor and distillation overhead DME concentrations meaningless. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 137, 140, 151. Dr. Porcelli testified, for example, that it was “improper and incorrect” for Mr. Jones “to fail to account for DME lost with the vent stream in the reactor, especially because of the high volatility of DME.” Id. ¶ 148. Mr. Miura’s measured amount of DME present in the first overhead in Experiment 1 was less than half the amount Mr. Jones calculated would be present, supporting Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that the loss of DME via the vents would have had a marked impact on the actual amount of DME sent to distillation column 40 (from which the second overhead stream is produced) in the ’095 patent Example. See Ex. 1060 ¶ 153 (“(103 ppm (calc.) vs. 48 ppm (actual)) is likely to due to loss of DME with the vent gas from the splitter condenser, due to the very low boiling point of DME”); see also Ex. 1039 ¶ 97; Ex. 1060 ¶ 121 (wherein Mr. Jones agreed that the loss of DME from the vent stream in the separator (or decanter) after splitter column 14 in the ’095 patent process would be substantial). Dr. Porcelli testified that he believed removal of DME by rapid carbonylation would have had a significant effect on the presence of DME in the ’095 patent Example and that this irreversible reaction should have been considered by Mr. Jones in his calculations. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 130–131. Mr. Jones conceded “some DME will be carbonylated in the reactor” (Ex. 1060 ¶ 45), and that the carbonylation of DME to make acetic acid under low water conditions is an irreversible reaction (Ex. 2026, 227:19–228:1). See also Ex. 1060 ¶ 27 (arguing Exhibits 2032, 2034 evidence DME formation in a batch reactor during methanol carbonylation, but admitting that as the water and methyl acetate start to diminish, DME concentration begins to drop and DME is eventually carbonylated into either acetic acid or acetic anhydride). Mr. Jones disagreed with Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that “carbonylation of DME is . . . known to have a fast reaction rate” and “would be consumed by carbonylation faster than it would be formed by methanol dehydration, especially under low water conditions” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 130). Ex. 1060 ¶ 44. Mr. Jones provided testimony explaining why he believes “the carbonylation of DME is not particularly fast.” Id.; see id. ¶¶ 45–48. Mr. Jones relied on a textbook by Gauthier-Lafaye (Ex. 1062), published in 1987, as evidence that the carbonylation of DME proceeds more slowly than the carbonylation of methyl acetate. Ex. 1060 ¶ 47. Mr. Jones testified that because the reaction liquid in the ’095 patent Example is reported to contain 1.6 wt% methyl acetate, and the carbonylation rate of DME is even slower than that of methyl acetate, then “it stands to reason that the carbonylation rate of DME is not going to be so fast as to ‘immediately’ react away any DME that is formed via the methanol dehydration equilibrium reaction.” Id. ¶ 48. Mr. Jones further testified that consideration of this competing side reaction was “irrelevant to calculating equilibrium concentration” of DME in the reactor in the ’095 patent Example. Id. ¶ 51. The disclosure in Gauthier-Lafaye relied upon by Mr. Jones relates to the carbonylation of methyl acetate into acetic anhydride (Ex. 1062, 9), i.e., a different reaction system than the ’095 and ’507 patents (see Paper 73, 8 (Observation #F.1)). This evidence, therefore, does not support Mr. Jones’s testimony that the carbonylation of DME in the ’095 patent reaction system was irrelevant to his calculation of equilibrium DME concentration. Rather we credit Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that removal of DME by rapid carbonylation would have had an effect on the presence, or at least the quantity, of DME in the ’095 patent Example, and that this factor should have been taken into consideration by Mr. Jones in his calculations. See Ex. 2029 ¶ 130. Mr. Jones testified that in view of the low boiling point of DME (-23.7 ºC), most of the DME will immediately flash from the reactor product . . . and be concentrated in the overhead streams. In view of the relatively low amount of DME in the reactor and overhead, DME’s very low boiling point, and the elevated temperatures in the reactor, special handling techniques would be needed to sample for such a compound in the reaction mixture. It is therefore not surprising that the presence of DME was not measured in the ’095 patent, despite the fact that it was undoubtedly present. Ex. 1060 ¶ 118. Given Mr. Miura’s testimony that he believed DME, if present, would have been detectable (Ex. 1046, 280:9–281:1), and Paulik’s disclosure that insubstantial amounts of DME were measurable as early as 1970 (see, e.g., Ex. 2037, 13:47–49, 15:32–34), Mr. Jones’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1060 ¶ 101 (“It should be clear to someone skilled in the art that very dilute and trace components are frequently not reported in chemical analytical results or in listed process stream compositions.”)) does not show convincingly that DME was present in the second overhead in more than a trace quantity, if at all. See id. ¶ 90 (“[T]he only issue is whether some amount of DME exists (which clearly it does).”).” slip op. at 56

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “have been present in the distillation overhead in the ’095 patent Example in an amount sufficient to reduce solubility of methyl iodide in water during subsequent water extraction steps. Mr. Miura testified that 1.2 wt% DME was present in the second overhead in Experiment 1. Ex. 1005 ¶ 13, Table 1. Mr. Jones testified that he would expect the amount of DME in the second overhead in the ’095 patent process to be about three times the amount of DME in the overhead in Miura Experiment 1 (Ex. 2040, 289:10–– 298:7), because Mr. Miura’s experiment was carried out under conditions less favorable to DME formation as compared to the conditions in the ’095 patent Example (see Ex. 1060 ¶¶ 130, 139). A preponderance of the evidence, however, does not support a finding that DME was present, if at all, in more than a trace quantity/insubstantial amount in the second overhead of the ’095 patent Example, for the following reasons: Although Mr. Miura reported that the second overhead in his Experiment 1 contained 1.2% DME (Ex. 1005 ¶ 13, Table 1), he did not testify that this quantity would be present in the ’095 patent Example despite acknowledged differences in quantities of reaction components and operating conditions (see id. ¶ 21). Rather, Mr. Miura testified that Experiment 1 provided evidence that DME simply was present in some amount in the second overhead in the ’095 patent Example. Id. (“[T]he deviations would not affect the outcome with respect to the presence of DME in the first and second overheads.”). Mr. Miura testified that he supervised the ’095 patent Example and believed DME was present and accounted for in the 0.9 wt% reported as “others.” Ex. 1046, 241:17–242:9. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Mr. Jones’s testimony that the amount of DME in the second overhead in the ’095 patent process would be about three times the amount of DME in the overhead in Miura Experiment 1, i.e. 3.6 wt% (Ex. 2040, 289:10––298:7). See Tr. 70:3–8 (wherein Patent Owner’s counsel raises this inconsistency). We are not persuaded by Mr. Jones’s testimony that an amount as high as 3.6 wt% DME could have been present in the ’095 patent Example, but not reported (see Ex. 2040, 301:18–303:2; Paper 73, 5–6 (Observation #C.4)), since the prior art, e.g., Paulik, clearly indicates DME was considered an undesirable reaction byproduct in a carbonylation process. Mr. Miura did not testify as to what portion of the 0.9 wt% reported as “others” in the ’095 patent Example constituted DME, or whether the amount of DME would be considered more than a trace quantity/insubstantial amount. Nor is there any testimony or evidence that 0.9 wt% or less DME in the overhead/feed to the extractor would have been an amount sufficient to cause a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream and an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during the subsequent extraction of the first raffinate stream as required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 58 of the ’507 patent. We are not persuaded that Mr. Jones’s calculations provide a reliable method of determining the amount of DME present in a methanol carbonylation process. Mr. Miura and Dr. Porcelli agreed that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the presence or amount of a component such as DME in a methanol carbonylation system such as the one described in the ’095 patent. See Ex. 1046, 281:14–22; Ex. 2029 ¶ 112. Dr. Porcelli testified that Mr. Jones’s estimates of DME content in the ’095 patent Example were based on numerous assumptions that rendered his estimations of reactor and distillation overhead DME concentrations meaningless. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 137, 140, 151. Dr. Porcelli testified, for example, that it was “improper and incorrect” for Mr. Jones “to fail to account for DME lost with the vent stream in the reactor, especially because of the high volatility of DME.” Id. ¶ 148. Mr. Miura’s measured amount of DME present in the first overhead in Experiment 1 was less than half the amount Mr. Jones calculated would be present, supporting Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that the loss of DME via the vents would have had a marked impact on the actual amount of DME sent to distillation column 40 (from which the second overhead stream is produced) in the ’095 patent Example. See Ex. 1060 ¶ 153 (“(103 ppm (calc.) vs. 48 ppm (actual)) is likely to due to loss of DME with the vent gas from the splitter condenser, due to the very low boiling point of DME”); see also Ex. 1039 ¶ 97; Ex. 1060 ¶ 121 (wherein Mr. Jones agreed that the loss of DME from the vent stream in the separator (or decanter) after splitter column 14 in the ’095 patent process would be substantial).” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,076,507 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,076,507
• Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00343 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–3, 6–14, 18, 19, 21–27, and 29–37 not shown unpatentable because Conwell did not disclose a non-exhaustive search and Ghias and Philyaw did not teach one.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “exhaustive, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. PO Resp. 23– 32. Patent Owner argues that Conwell teaches identifying a match using a look-up table, but the process is not disclosed to be non-exhaustive. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1009, 3:43–44, 5:59–61, Fig. 3; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 364–366). Patent Owner additionally argues that “[w]hile there are ways to search the lookup table disclosed in Conwell using a non-exhaustive approach, Conwell does not disclose any such non-exhaustive approach.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 369). We agree that Conwell does not explicitly disclose that the look-up is performed non-exhaustively. Further, Patent Owner argues that Conwell also does not inherently disclose using the look-up table to conduct a non-exhaustive search. Id. at 27–31. Patent Owner continues that “Conwell provides no details as to how the exact-match search between the hashed identifier of the work to be identified and the hashed identifiers in the reference database is actually performed.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1009, 3:43–62). Patent Owner argues that Conwell details how its database is maintained, but does not provide specific disclosures as to how the database is searched. Id. at 31–32. We also agree that Conwell does not inherently disclose that the look-up is performed nonexhaustively.” slip op. at 8

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

    “As Patent Owner points out, the second search of the identified matches is performed exhaustively of Works A, C, D, and E. Tr. 40–43 (citing Ex. 1010 7:4–9; Ex. 2005 ¶ 288; Ex. 2006, 325:12–21, 336:12–22). If viewed as separate and independent searches, both would be exhaustive of the data set being searched, and if viewed as a single search, all of the initially input records of the data set (i.e., Works A–E) would be searched by that single search, making it exhaustive. As such, we agree that Ghias does not teach or suggest a non-exhaustive search, as recited in the independent claims. Petitioner responds that Ghias’s subsequent searches are non- exhaustive (Reply 13–14), but we have addressed the same in the prior paragraph, not finding it to be persuasive. Petitioner also argues that the queries from the “first” and “second” searches need not be the same, and in fact would likely be different, such that the results for the first query could exclude non-matches from the results, where those non-matches would be matches for the second query, so that the subsequent search for the second query would not consider these excluded references. Id. at 14. We are not persuaded, however, as the search would still be exhaustive to the dataset provided to the search algorithm. As discussed above, we construe “non-exhaustive search” as “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” We are not persuaded that simply because a search does not seek matches outside of its input records would make that search non-exhaustive; that would make every search non-exhaustive, because it is, by definition, limited to the records input or available to the search algorithm. Petitioner also argues that Ghias discloses that its string matching algorithms operate faster than a brute force search (Reply 14–15), but we are persuaded, as discussed above, that this disclosure is related to comparing a work with a single record in the database, and not with respect to all of the records in the database. Petitioner also argues that Ghias discloses that performance may be improved by “packing all the songs into one file,” whereby the non-exhaustive searching within a record would apply to all of the concatenated record, making the search of the records non-exhaustive. Id. at 15. With respect to this latter argument, we agree with Patent Owner that this represents a “new theory” of the ground than that established in the Petition. Paper 24, 1–2. Compare Pet. 47–48, with Reply 14–15. We will not consider such new arguments for the purposes of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 2016 WL 2620512, at *8–9 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (concluding the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “i.e., exhaustive and non-exhaustive, and that “one would have envisaged a ‘non-exhaustive’ search as the predominant form of ‘database query,’” such that Conwell discloses the elements of the claims in substance. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 371; In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We do not agree. Instead, we find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Karypis that exhaustive methods may be employed to perform the database lookup in Conwell, and that Conwell does not disclose any non-exhaustive approach. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 367–369. Although Petitioner alleges that Dr. Karypis’s declaration “is replete with attorney argument presented in the guise of expert testimony,” and thus entitled to little weight (Reply 19), we find no fault with his specific review and interpretation of Conwell, and we are persuaded that it demonstrates that the lookup processes in Conwell need not be non-exhaustive.” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to this latter argument, we agree with Patent Owner that this represents a “new theory” of the ground than that established in the Petition. Paper 24, 1–2. Compare Pet. 47–48, with Reply 14–15. We will not consider such new arguments for the purposes of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 2016 WL 2620512, at *8–9 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (concluding the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,640,179 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,640,179
• Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00347 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–17, 21–28, 31–33, 38, 51, and 52 were not shown unpatentable because Ghias and Iwamura did not disclose the claimed non-exhaustive search.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Ghias discloses “a non- exhaustive search identifying a neighbor,” as recited in independent claim 15. Claims 16, 17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 depend from claim 15. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Ghias discloses each and every limitation of claims 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ghias anticipates 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 of the ’988 patent.” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15–446, slip op. at 13 (U.S. June 20, 2016). In our Institution Decision, we construed “a non-exhaustive search” to mean “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” Dec. 7. We disagreed with Petitioner’s view that a search that conducts a comparison with all possible matches is nevertheless non-” slip op. at 5

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

    “For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Ghias discloses “a non- exhaustive search identifying a neighbor,” as recited in independent claim 15. Claims 16, 17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 depend from claim 15. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Ghias discloses each and every limitation of claims 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ghias anticipates 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 of the ’988 patent.” slip op. at 12

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

    “With respect to its contention that claims 22, 24–26, and 52 would have been obvious over Ghias, Petitioner does not present any additional analysis of the recited “non-exhaustive search” beyond that addressed above in connection with claim 15. Therefore, for the same reasons, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 22, 24–26, and 52 are unpatentable for obviousness over Ghias.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,010,988 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,010,988
• Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00348 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, 18, 19, 21–27, 29, and 30 were not shown unpatentable because neither Conwell nor Ghias and Philyaw disclosed the claimed non-exhaustive neighbor search.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15–446, slip op. at 13 (U.S. June 20, 2016). In our Institution Decision, we construed “a non-exhaustive . . . search” to mean “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” Dec. 7. We disagreed with Petitioner’s view that a search that conducts a comparison with all possible matches is nevertheless non-exhaustive if it does not compare all data within all possible matches. Id.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference either expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim. Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., 605 F.3d 967, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “two species—exhaustive and non-exhaustive—and a skilled artisan “would have envisaged a ‘non-exhaustive’ search as the predominant form of ‘database query.’” Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 371). Therefore, according to Petitioner, Conwell discloses a non-exhaustive search in substance. Id. (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We do not agree. Instead, we find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Karypis that the database look-up in Conwell may use exhaustive methods, and Conwell does not disclose any non-exhaustive approach. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 367– 69. Although Petitioner alleges that Dr. Karypis’s declaration is entitled to little weight because it “is replete with attorney argument presented in the guise of expert testimony,” Pet. Reply 19, we are persuaded that his analysis of Conwell demonstrates that the look-up processes disclosed in Conwell need not be non-exhaustive. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Conwell discloses “a non-exhaustive neighbor search,” as recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 25. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8–12, 14, 19, 21–24, 26, and 30 each depend from one of the independent claims and thus also include this limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Conwell discloses each and every limitation of claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, 19, 21–26, and 30. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Conwell anticipates claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, 19, 21–26, and 30 of the ’441 patent.” slip op. at 11

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

    “recitation of claim limitations. Pet. Reply 9. Further, Petitioner contends, at the time the ’441 patent was filed, “it was at least ‘probable’ that one skilled in the art would use a non-exhaustive lookup to conduct a database query.” Id. However, the fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even if it would have been trivial to perform the look-up in Conwell using a non-exhaustive process, such a possible application does not demonstrate that Conwell expressly or inherently discloses a non-exhaustive search, as is required for anticipation.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,656,441 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,656,441
• EMC Corporation v. Acqis LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01469 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24 and 31–33 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove obviousness over either asserted reference combination, including failure to establish Bogaerts as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “a data signal communication with an interconnected peripheral component.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner agrees with the construction in the Decision on Institution that the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” means “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction.” PO Resp. 21–22. We see no reason now to deviate from the construction in the Decision on Institution. The evidence indicates that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” refers to a particular industry standard, not just any communication with an interconnected peripheral component. Industry literature and dictionaries use the proper noun “Peripheral Component Interconnect” and the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry specification for a local bus. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2002, 6–7; Ex. 2003, 7–8. The challenged claims recite “Peripheral Component Interconnect” as a proper noun and abbreviate it as “PCI,” indicating that the challenged claims use those terms consistent with the understood industry meaning. Ex. 1001, col. 27, ll. 24–25, col. 28, ll. 35–36; see Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The written description similarly uses the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry standard, and uses the common noun “peripheral bus” to refer to a generic peripheral bus. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 31–33 (“the present invention may interface two PCI or PCI-like buses”), with id. at col. 7, ll. 4–6 (“Additionally, the host controller is coupled to a clock control logic, a configuration signal, and a peripheral bus.”) (emphasis added). Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Bruce Young, acknowledge that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. Ex. 1003 ¶ 58; Ex. 2006, 1, 3; Ex. 2031, 16:8–12. The evidence Petitioner identifies in support of its proposed construction is the claim construction order issued in ACQIS LLC v. Appro International, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2011). Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1013). In that case, though, the parties did not appear to dispute that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. See Ex. 1013, 7 (“The parties’ primary dispute is whether the term is limited to the conventional, parallel PCI Local Bus, and, therefore excludes PCI Express bus architecture and bus transaction protocol.”). Moreover, the district court subsequently reconsidered its construction and clarified that the term “PCI bus transaction” refers to a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Ex. 1030, 8–10. Therefore, we construe the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction,” and we construe the claim term “PCI bus transaction” to mean “PCI industry standard bus transaction.”” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Horst outputs address and data bits of a PCI bus transaction in serial form over the TNet links. Pet. 31–34. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. The TNet processor interface in Horst translates a CPU transaction into a TNet transaction. Ex. 1009, 5 (“The interface to the destination CPU or I/O device provides mapping and validation hardware translating this virtual TNet address to the appropriate physical memory address.”), Figs. 5, 7; Ex. 2021 ¶ 94 (“The TNet Processor Interface generates TNet transactions from CPU front-side bus transactions.”). The TNet processor interface then encodes the TNet transaction using an 8B/9B encoder so that it can be output over the 9-bit serial TNet links. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48, 146; Ex. 1009, 3, Figs. 3, 4 (showing “8B/9B encoder”), Table 1; Ex. 2021 ¶ 105. Petitioner does not identify persuasive evidence indicating that either the CPU transaction or the TNet transaction is a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1009, 3–8, Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7–9, Table 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159[24C(i)], 159[24C(iv)], 159[24C(v)], 159[31B(i)], 159[31B(iii)]); Ex. 2021 ¶ 129. Thus, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Petitioner points out that, after a TNet transaction is communicated over the TNet links, a TNet bus interface in the console may use information in the TNet transaction to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction if a particular I/O device is connected to a PCI bus. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1009, 7, Fig. 8). But claims 24 and 31 require more than just communicating information over serial channels that subsequently might be used in the console to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Claims 24 and 31, when read in light of the specification, require that the information actually communicated over the serial channels includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Ex. 1001, col. 20, ll. 60–65, col. 21, ll. 15–21, col. 27, ll. 34–38, col. 28, ll. 34–39; Ex. 2022, 15:12–16:2, 22:11–16. As discussed above, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “The evidence identified by Patent Owner indicates that the date “2 October 1996” on Bogaerts is when it was submitted to the CERN/LHCC committee. Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 170, 171, 173; Ex. 2026, 12. Although it is possible that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library at or around the same time, Petitioner has not shown that by a preponderance of the evidence. For example, Petitioner does not cite persuasive evidence indicating that the “Submitted by 2 Oct 1996” entry in the CERN Document Server record means that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library on that date. Tr. 23:1–12, 25:5–25; Pet. Reply 21–25. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the CERN Document Server record itself was not created until December 18, 2014. Tr. 25:5–25; Ex. 2011, 439. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Bogaerts is a prior art printed publication based on its availability in the CERN Library.” slip op. at 17

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “should be excluded for lack of authentication under Fed. R. Evid. 901. PO Mot. 2–6. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires that the proponent produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent claims it is. Here, Patent Owner does not dispute that Exhibit 1011 is what Petitioner claims it is, namely a reference entitled “RD24 Status Report: Application of the Scalable Coherent Interface to Data Acquisition at LHC.” Id. What Patent Owner disputes is whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Bogaerts is prior art with respect to the ’814 patent. Id. Patent Owner attempts to characterize this dispute as a question of authentication, arguing that Petitioner has not produced “evidence that [Exhibit 1011] is a true and correct copy of a publication that was publicly available as of the date asserted by Petitioner.” Id. at 3. But this is a question of sufficiency of proof, not admissibility. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1011 is denied.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS RE42,814 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham

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.