- Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,770,121 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00556 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach or suggest the limitation requiring no outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“As the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. Consequently, and according to the plain and ordinary meaning, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, 29 such as a cloth, fabric or other material, that covers all, or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, and specifically “between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame,” we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the spaces between those struts and members. Consequently, the ordinary and customary meaning of the limitation “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” is that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As an initial matter, there is little disagreement between the parties and their experts that PET can be a graft covering. However, the disputed limitation requires something more. Specifically, it requires that “the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.” We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence of record, that Levi, Spenser II, or Walther, upon which Petitioner relies, teaches or suggests the incorporated limitation of claim 1 reciting “wherein the valve assembly is free of an outer graft covering between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame.” In our analysis, we must first determine what is meant by the claim term “outer graft covering.”” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, our understanding of an outer graft covering as a material or structure that covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering, reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by challenged claim 1. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met 35 its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 10,987,236 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,987,236 - Transgene / Bioinvent International AB v. Replimune LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 25, 2023 · PGR2022-00014 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · PGR · Final written decision
The Board held claim 13 not unpatentable over Silvestre or Du, Choi, and Zitvogel, finding insufficient motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“or “POSITA”) “would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, or a related field, with expertise in virology (including expertise growing, isolating, and rescuing viruses), immunology, and cancer biology with at least four years of post-Ph.D. experience in those areas.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35, 96). Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. See PO Resp. 5. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition as that definition is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the prior art. 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” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“claim terms of the ’513 patent for purposes of determining whether to institute trial. For purposes of our analysis in this Final Written Decision, however, we find that it would be useful to clarify the scope of “oncolytic virus.” We agree with Petitioner that the Specification defines an “oncolytic virus” as “a virus that infects and replicates in tumor cells, such that tumor cells are killed.” Ex. 1001, 9:10–12. The Specification further clarifies that “the virus is replication competent,” and is preferably selectively replication competent in tumor tissue. Id. at 9:12–13. “A patentee is free to be his own lexicographer.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, consistent with its express definition in the Specification, to be a virus that infects and replicates in tumor cells, such that tumor cells are killed, wherein such a virus is replication competent.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“but contends that “oncolytic virus” should not be construed to encompass “viral vectors” such as those disclosed in Zitvogel. PO Resp. 5. Although Petitioner does not expressly contend otherwise, we agree with Patent Owner that “oncolytic virus” would not encompass Zitvogel’s “viral vectors,” which are defined in that reference to be “replication-defective” or “replication-impaired.” Ex. 1004, 19:26–29. We do not construe any other claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner acknowledges that “while the bulk of Silvestre’s disclosure, including the working examples, is directed towards creating an oncolytic poxvirus, Silvestre discloses preparing modified oncolytic virus using other virus types, including HSV.” Pet. 44. It is undisputed, however, that Silvestre does not disclose a single embodiment of an oncolytic HSV that includes both a heterologous GM-CSF encoding gene and a heterologous CTLA-4 inhibitor encoding gene. Rather, Petitioner points to where each element could be found among broader lists of possible oncolytic virus classes, immune checkpoint targets, and therapeutic genes. Ex. 1002, 7:10– 15:49. As noted by Dr. Chiocca, if one were to randomly select any of the 11 We need not decide whether Silvestre anticipates independent claim 1, as the sole challenged claim 13 depends directly from claim 11. Thus, our determination that Petitioner has not shown that claim 11 is anticipated is sufficient to establish that Petitioner has not met its prerequisite burden for claim 13. Ex. 2009 ¶ 29. This type of picking and choosing is not anticipation. See Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,947,513 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,947,513 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00034 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to show claim 6 unpatentable because none of the seven asserted grounds established the required absence of an outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“November 2012 would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“We determine that, as the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must circumferentially cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. See Merriam-Webster, Cover, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover (last visited March 2, 2023) (defining “cover,” relevantly, as “something that is placed over or about another thing”). See Ex. 3004. Consequently, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, such as a cloth or fabric or other material, that circumferentially covers all or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the intervals between those struts and members. Consequently, we construe the limitation reciting “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” to mean that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 40
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, or otherwise provide any additional argument or evidence to demonstrate that the outer skirt of Levi does not constitute the outer graft covering prohibited by claim 6. Consequently, our initial determinations stand. Furthermore, our definition of outer graft covering herein as “a material or structure that circumferentially covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the 45 interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering” reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by claim 6. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 45
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Both the descriptions and Figure 22 of Spenser II show a cloth covering the proximal outer surface of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve, including the spaces between the struts and members of the frame. Furthermore, the reference discloses that any fibers extending outwardly from the cloth arise from the surface of the cloth, and are not attached directly to the frame, as depicted in Figure 11 of the ’846 Specification. Thus, even were such fibers made of the same material as the cloth, which is not clear from the reference’s disclosure, the cloth would be between the surface-residing fibers and the metallic outer frame. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sleeve-like cloth or fabric of Spenser II corresponds to an outer graft covering between its fibers and its outer frame, and such a covering would be between Spencer II’s surface fibers and its metallic outer frame. Such an outer graft cover is expressly prohibited by the language of claim 6, even if it and associated extending fibers are of the same material.” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 10,966,846 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,966,846 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cardiovalve Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01051 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted the non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–10 and replacing them with claims 11–20, which Petitioner failed to prove unpatentable over Goldfarb ’267.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“We conclude that Petitioner’s arguments are insufficient to meet its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Goldfarb ’267 anticipates, or renders obvious, the limitation of proposed substitute claim 11 reciting “advancing the end of the first-clip arm and the end of the second-clip arm out of the delivery tube before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube” merely requires advancing the ends of the clip arms out of the delivery tube “before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube.” Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to proposed substitute dependent claims 12–20 due to their dependence from, and incorporation of, the limitations of proposed substitute claim 11. See Supp. Mot. Amend. 1, Reply Supp. Mot. Amend. 1. We therefore conclude that these proposed substitute claims are similarly neither anticipated by, nor obvious over, Goldfarb ’267. III. CONCLUSION We GRANT Patent Owner’s non-contingent Motion to Amend and Supplemental Motion to Amend, canceling original claims 1–10 and replacing them with substitute claims 11–20. Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, and after having analyzed the entirety of the record and assigning appropriate weight to the cited supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claims 11–20 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 57
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having weighed the evidence and Petitioner’s argument, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as: (1) a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least three years of experience in designing or developing medical devices who would, where necessary or desired, work or consult with others including a physician to develop such a medical device; or (2) an interventional cardiologist or cardiac surgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in the heart, and who would, where necessary, work or consult with others including an engineer to develop such a medical device. See Pet. 15–16.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Vesely. Ex. 1003. We have reviewed the credentials of Dr. Vesely and consider him qualified to provide the opinions for which his testimony has 4 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,563,267 B2, July 21, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’267”) (Ex. 1005). 5 Petitioner refers to Goldfarb’s ’267 disclosure of a further alternative at Ex. 1005 col. 27 ll. 57–60 as Embodiment A. See Pet. 19. We understand the asserted Embodiment A to encompass the description that extends to Ex. 1005 col. 28, l. 9. See Pet. 24–48. 6 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,635,329 B2, December 22, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’329”) Ex. 1006. 7 Ex. 1005 cols. 17–23, ll. 66–29, Figs. 9–16; see Pet. 21–22. been submitted. See id. ¶¶ 1–9; see also Ex. 1004 (Dr. Vesely’s curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“is described in Goldfarb ’267 as plainly a single, unitary structure and, as such, each portion argued as separate elements by Petitioner (i.e., male element (yellow), female element (green), coupling member 19 (blue) and flexible arms 19A and 19B (dark blue)) together form a solid, single component. Thus, all of the “elements” described by Petitioner as being “separate” are in fact a single unit that: (1) bears the weight of the fixation device during delivery; (2) absorbs and transfer the axial and rotational forces imposed by the shaft 12; and (3) holds the device in the correct orientation. Petitioner points to no disclosure of Goldfarb ’267 that suggests these elements act independently or separately to perform the functions of the unitary component, nor can we discern any such disclosure. We therefore find that Petitioner’s argument that only the “male element” portion of coupling member 19 constitutes the “support portion” recited in proposed substitute claim 11 is an arbitrary and unduly restrictive interpretation of the reference’s disclosure. This is particularly true given that Petitioner points to no portion of the male element of coupling member 19 performing a supporting function that is not shared by the other elements of coupling member 19. We conclude that the better understanding of the reference is that the entirety of coupling member 19 (including flexible arms 10A and 19B11) constitutes an analogous support portion, as recited by substitute claim 11, because it provides a unitary structure that performs the supporting functions enumerated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 10,702,385 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,702,385 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 23, 2018 · IPR2017-00100 · APJ John P Pinkerton · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8 and 9 were not proven unpatentable because Samsung did not establish that WD4 was a prior art printed publication.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Whether a reference is publicly accessible is determined on a case-by-case basis based on the “facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted) (GSM standard was “sufficiently accessible, at least to the public interested in the art” (citing In re Hall, 781 F. 2d at 899)). Just as indexing plays a significant role in evaluating whether a reference in a library is publicly accessible, “indexing, ‘[w]hether . . . through search engines or otherwise,’ [] is also an important question for determining if a reference stored on a given website in cyberspace is publicly accessible.” Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “[A] printed publication need not be easily searchable after publication if it was sufficiently disseminated at the time of its publication.” Suffolk Technologies, LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 8,917,772 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,917,772 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 23, 2018 · IPR2017-00099 · APJ John P Pinkerton · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 were not proven unpatentable because Samsung did not establish that WD4 was a prior art printed publication under § 102(b).
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“evidence does not establish WD4 was indexed in a manner that one ordinarily skilled in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate it. See Response 45. There is no evidence that the JCT-VC site provided users sufficient guidance on finding documents of interest. Importantly, there is no evidence that one could search for or locate WD4 based on its subject matter. Although the Torino document register contains the number, title, and source (i.e, authors’ names) of each document, the subject of the document is not listed or identified. See In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160– 61 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (finding references were not publicly accessible, despite the use of indexing, because the references were indexed only by title and author’s name, rather than by subject). Furthermore, identifying a meeting location was key to navigating the JCT-VC site; however, there is no evidence showing that persons of skill in the art outside of JCT-VC would have had any knowledge or familiarity with the cities in which the JCT-VC meetings were conducted or that the names of the cities were helpful in any respect in locating a document on the site. For these reasons, the evidence does not support the conclusion by a preponderance of the evidence that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have been aware of the JCT-VC document repository site, or that, if they were aware of the site, would have been able to locate the WD4 document relied upon by Samsung.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Bross’s testimony is conclusory and insufficiently factually supported. We understand Mr. Bross to be testifying in this regard as a fact witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 602, rather than as an expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Under Rule 602, a fact witness may testify as to a matter only if “evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. Here, Mr. Bross’s testimony is based on his “knowledge and recollection” and “the prominence of the JCT-VC” in the video coding industry. However, the particular factual knowledge on which the testimony is based is not described. Similarly, the “prominence” of the JCT-VC is nothing more than an unsupported assumption. We also find Mr. Bross has not been shown to have the requisite personal knowledge to testify about persons “who would regularly visit the JCT-VC site.” Even if we accepted Mr. Bross’s premise of the “prominence of the JCT-VC,” we would not find that to be a sufficient basis for Mr. Bross to reliably testify about persons “regularly visit[ing]” the JCT-VC site.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,917,772 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,917,772 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2017 · IPR2016-00480 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 14 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because neither Shin nor Poison Java and Brown teaches executable code received at the destination without modification.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“according to the entire disclosure of the ’633 patent specification the executable code is received at the destination without modification. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,” and “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.”). “The specification may define claim terms ‘by implication’ such that the meaning may be ‘found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.’” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582, 1584 n. 6). We also confirm the scope of the “executable code” in light of the advantage of the invention, e.g., to protect against malicious code without modifying the executable code, thereby minimizing resources. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing a ring as permanently attached to the cover because all embodiments read together suggest this relationship and the specification describes the advantages of the unitary structure). Although the specification describes additional advantages, such as not requiring pre-installation of security code within the destination, the claims need not encompass all stated advantages. See Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[P]atentees [are] not required to include within each of their claims all of [the] advantages or features described as significant or important in the written description.”). Finally, all the embodiments are consistent with and support the inventors’ characterization of the problem solved: avoiding the resource intensive modification by communicating to the destination the mobile protection code and the detected executable code. See Ex. 1001, 10:39−45; 1:63−3:6; see also O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (relying on the consistent disclosure of structures as being either non-smooth or conical and the statements distinguishing prior art where structures were smooth). In light of the disclosure, the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed claim language emerges: the executable code whose operations are processed by the mobile protection code at the destination is the same as the executable code received, i.e., it undergoes no modification. In sum, we determine that the “executable code” at the destination is not modified.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“research at Stanford, and archived by archive.org, shows that the article’s title was listed and that the article was publicly available through the Internet as of April 14, 1998. Ex. 1095. As explained in the affidavit proffered by Christopher Butler, Office Manager of Internet Archive, the URL format for captured website, “19980418130342/http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~ishin/research.html,” establishes that the website posting the abstract and the title of the article with a link to the article itself were archived on April 18, 1998 at 13:03:42. Id. The article was available as a PDF file, downloadable from the same page. Id. (identifying in a cover page the URL showing that Ex. 1009 was available from www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~ishin/paper.ps, as of April 18, 1998). We find this evidence credible and undisputed. Finally, there is also undisputed evidence that Dr. Rubin read Shin in 1998. Ex. 2022, 70:20−71:13. Accordingly, we find that Shin was publicly available and sufficiently accessible online to persons interested in applet security no later than April 14, 1998.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We find that Shin’s constant pool is not the same as the IAT embodiment described in the ’633 patent. As stated above, the mobile protection code modifies the IAT at the destination while processing the one or more operations of the executable code. In contrast, Shin’s applet is modified at the proxy server, and its modification constitutes rewriting the bytecode of the applet, which is executable. See Ex. 1009, 2 (“we propose a technique, called bytecode modification, through which we put restrictions on applets by inserting additional bytecode instructions that will perform the necessary run-time tests”), 4 (“modified executable entities are inserted in Java bytecode”). As explained by Shin, the constant pool is part of the class file of the applet. Id. at 5. Further, the bytecode modification is not performed at run-time, like the IAT modification table scenario. See id. at 2 (“HTTP proxy server []modifies classes before they are received by the browser”), 4 (Shin explaining that the “safety mechanism must be applied before the applet is executed”). The differences are significant, for the modification of the applet at the server is precisely the type of modification that the ’633 patent sought to avoid. The applet is undisputedly executable code, and is what Petitioner pointed to in Shin as disclosing executable code. See Pet. 43 (“Shin also discloses that the safeguarding code processes operations attempted by the applet (‘executable code’) . . . .”). By describing that the server modifies the constant pool in the applet, we find that Shin teaches modifying the executable code before the applet is processed at the client browser. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Shin teaches or suggests that the applet is “executable code” as we have construed the claim language, supra.” slip op. at 26
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“and 2048 in general as irrelevant, potentially confusing, and prejudicial. Id. at 8−15. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is denied as moot, because that evidence objected to is not relied upon in reaching our determination that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that claims 14 and 19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 7,647,633 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,647,633 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2017 · IPR2015-01974 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 14 and 19 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because both relied on modified executable code, contrary to the Board’s construction.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“To conclude, our determination is based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims within the context of the specification. First, 7 Similarly, Petitioner relies on testimony from the deposition of Finjan’s expert in the District Court litigation, Dr. Nenad Medvidovic, Exhibit 1100. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1100). 8 We do not rely on expert testimony also because extrinsic evidence may not be used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic record. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2015). according to the entire disclosure of the ’633 patent specification the executable code is received at the destination without modification. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,” and “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.”). “The specification may define claim terms ‘by implication’ such that the meaning may be ‘found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.’” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582, 1584 n. 6). We also confirm the scope of the “executable code” in light of the advantage of the invention, e.g., to protect against malicious code without modifying the executable code, thereby minimizing resources. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing a ring as permanently attached to the cover because all embodiments read together suggest this relationship and the specification describes the advantages of the unitary structure). Although the specification describes additional advantages, such as not requiring pre-installation of security code within the destination, the claims need not encompass all stated advantages. See Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[P]atentees [are] not required to include within each of their claims all of [the] advantages or features described as significant or important in the written description.”). Finally, all the embodiments are consistent with and support the inventors’ characterization of the problem solved: avoiding the resource intensive modification by communicating to the destination the mobile protection code and the detected executable code. See Ex. 1001, 10:39−45; 1:63−3:6; see also O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (relying on the consistent disclosure of structures as being either non-smooth or conical and the statements distinguishing prior art where structures were smooth). In light of the disclosure, the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed claim language emerges: the executable code whose operations are processed by the mobile protection code at the destination is the same as the executable code received, i.e., it undergoes no modification. In sum, we determine that the “executable code” at the destination is not modified.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“publication or dissemination. See Ex. 1009. Petitioner, however, has provided other evidence establishing that Shin was publicly available no later than April 1998. A printout of the website directed to Mr. Shin’s research at Stanford, and archived by archive.org, shows that the article’s title was listed and that the article was publicly available through the Internet as of April 14, 1998. Ex. 1095. As explained in the affidavit proffered by Christopher Butler, Office Manager of Internet Archive, the URL format for captured website, “19980418130342/http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~ishin/research.html,” establishes that the website posting the abstract and the title of the article with a link to the article itself were archived on April 18, 1998 at 13:03:42. Id. The article was available as a PDF file, downloadable from the same page. Id. (identifying in a cover page the URL showing that Ex. 1009 was available from www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~ishin/paper.ps, as of April 18, 1998). We find this evidence credible and undisputed. Finally, there is also undisputed evidence that Dr. Rubin read Shin in 1998. Ex. 2022, 70:20−71:13. Accordingly, we find that Shin was publicly available and sufficiently accessible online to persons interested in applet security no later than April 14, 1998.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We find that Shin’s constant pool is not the same as the IAT embodiment described in the ’633 patent. As stated above, the mobile protection code modifies the IAT at the destination while processing the one or more operations of the executable code. In contrast, Shin’s applet is modified at the proxy server, and its modification constitutes rewriting the bytecode of the applet, which is executable. See Ex. 1009, 2 (“we propose a technique, called bytecode modification, through which we put restrictions on applets by inserting additional bytecode instructions that will perform the necessary run-time tests”), 4 (“modified executable entities are inserted in Java bytecode”). As explained by Shin, the constant pool is part of the class file of the applet. Id. at 5. Further, the bytecode modification is not performed at run-time, like the IAT modification table scenario. See id. at 2 (“HTTP proxy server []modifies classes before they are received by the browser”), 4 (Shin explaining that the “safety mechanism must be applied before the applet is executed”). The differences are significant, for the modification of the applet at the server is precisely the type of modification that the ’633 patent sought to avoid. The applet is undisputedly executable code, and is what Petitioner pointed to in Shin as disclosing executable code. See Pet. 43 (“Shin also discloses that the safeguarding code processes operations attempted by the applet (‘executable code’) . . . .”). By describing that the server modifies the constant pool in the applet, we find that Shin teaches modifying the executable code before the applet is processed at the client browser. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Shin teaches or suggests that the applet is “executable code” as we have construed the claim language, supra.” slip op. at 26
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“and 2048 in general as irrelevant, potentially confusing, and prejudicial. Id. at 8−15. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is denied as moot, because that evidence objected to is not relied upon in reaching our determination that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that claims 14 and 19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 7,647,633 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,647,633 - Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–13 were not shown unpatentable because Beifus did not disclose the claimed torque table with alternate torque settings.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Beifus states that Figure 6 “is a chart illustrating an induction motor speed-torque curve that is programmed into a memory of an ECM.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. Because “[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,” the dispositive issue in this proceeding is well defined: does Figure 6 (and related disclosure) of Beifus teach “selecting a torque table associated with the adjustment factor, the torque table including alternate torque settings,” as recited in independent claim 7? See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“reasoning of Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that “[u]pon reading Beifus, a person of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that the ECM control circuit could handle the torque values in two ways – storing a set of torque values in a memory or by calculating the torque values ‘on the fly.’” Reply 18. Kennametal explains that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘do[es] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal at 1381 (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). Petitioner did not raise the Kennametal theory of anticipation in its Petition, and the argument based on it in the Reply is, therefore, improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”) (emphasis added); CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Helferich Pat. Lic., LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 79) (“Should there be improper arguments or evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its discretion, may exclude the reply and related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively, decline to consider the improper arguments and/or related evidence.”). Although Patent Owner addressed this theory in its Response (PO Resp. 21–24), Patent Owner appears to have done so only prophylactically after the theory was raised by Petitioner in redirect examination of Dr. Sidman. See PO Resp. 21 (“During Dr. Sidman’s redirect examination by [Petitioner’s] counsel, he was asked the following leading question . . . .”) (“The Board should disregard any of this new evidence and argument if [Petitioner] intends to rely on it.”). Because this is a new argument, not raised in the Petition, we do not consider it.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“the ambiguity when Figure 6 is actually described in detail in the specification.” Id. at 16. As Patent Owner asserts, “Beifus makes it clear that Figure 6 is a plot of values derived from key characteristics which are motor parameters of the emulated motor.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 36; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16, 31). This understanding of Beifus is confirmed by testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16. Dr. Horenstein explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parameters stored in the ECM are key parameters used with the formula reproduced above to describe the torque-speed curve of the induction motor being emulated, namely the no-load speed, breakdown speed, and shape description number n. Id. ¶ 15. Dr. Horenstein further testifies that, “although square and diamond symbols appear along the curves in Figure 6, nowhere does Beifus describe the storing of these individual points.” Id. ¶ 16. Rather, Dr. Horenstein expresses his opinion that “a person of skill would understand these symbols to be included simply to identify which curve applies to Option 1 and which to Option 2 [i.e., different options for the induction motor breakdown speed], as indicated by the legend to the right of the plots.” Id. Petitioner challenged Dr. Horenstein’s opinion at his deposition, in part by comparing a drawing from one of Dr. Horenstein’s own patents that included a series of curves with data marked by different symbols: Q. So if a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Figure 6 of the Beifus patent sees diamonds and squares, wouldn’t they come to an understanding that those are data points? A. I don’t think so. And the reason is that a formula is given that explains how the curves are computed. Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s patent], those are discretely measured points performed by experiment, and there really is no formula that applies to those curves per se, they’re just data points that have some scatter relative to each other and they happen to be connected by lines, but those lines do not represent a formula. Ex. 1013, 54:2–16. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of this testimony as explaining that “the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diamonds and squares appearing in Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s] patent are data points, as opposed to mere curve identifiers, is because the diamonds and squares are connected by lines.” Reply 15. Rather, Dr. Horenstein’s testimony makes clear that his opinion is grounded in Beifus’s disclosure of a formula that allows calculation of the illustrated points and that connection of data points measured by experiment with lines is incidental. Dr. Horenstein’s testimony is more persuasive than the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Michael D. Sidman, Ph.D., on the identification of “key characteristic points” disclosed by Beifus. For example, Dr. Sidman appeared to suggest at his deposition that the entire speed-torque curve of Beifus’s Figure 6 is itself a “key characteristic point,” but qualified that position when challenged by Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001, 23:22–25:15. Nevertheless, Dr. Sidman agrees that (1) a curve can be generated from a mathematical formula and graphed (Ex. 2001, 30:8–11); (2) Beifus’s two formulas correspond to the formulas for “Option 1” and “Option 2” shown in Figure 6 (id. at 33:12–36:19); (3) operating speed, breakdown speed, no load speed, and shape-description number n are variables used in the formula disclosed by Beifus (id. at 22:23–23:10); (4) the calculation disclosed by Beifus could be performed on the fly in a motor controller (id. at 47:6–14); and (5) Beifus does not explicitly disclose that any precalculations are performed (id. at 43:1–23). These aspects of Dr. Sidman’s testimony are consistent with Patent Owner’s reading of Beifus.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“We see no compelling reason to modify these constructions based on the positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt them for this Decision. With respect to the construction of “torque table,” Patent Owner asserts: If the Board’s construction means that the table need not be in any particular format in the memory, but the table must still store the alternative torque values required by the claim “in a memory connected to the motor,” then Patent Owner accepts this interpretation for the purposes of this proceeding. However, if the Board’s construction including reference to “a torque curve graphically representing a set of torque values” does not require the torque values shown on the curve to be stored in memory, it is erroneous. PO Resp. 9. We agree with Patent Owner’s position, namely that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘table’ still must require the torque values to be stored in the table.” Id. As Patent Owner points out, “[t]he only intrinsic evidence available in this proceeding demonstrates a ‘torque table’ stores alternative torque settings.” Id. In particular, the ’092 patent consistently uses “table” to refer to discrete data that are stored in a memory, such as in the “speed tables” described as alternatives to “torque tables.” See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 5–24, col. 16, ll. 63–66 (“Instead of adjusting the torque as described above, the motor controller 18 could store a plurality of different torque or speed tables and select one of the torque/speed tables based on an input provided by the torque adjustment mechanism.”). This aspect of the construction of “torque table” is reflected in its reference to including a graphical representation of “a set” of torque values in a memory connected to a motor.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 7,990,092 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,990,092
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.