• Gettattle, Inc. v. Afterwords, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 5, 2026 · IPR2025-00677 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Douglas and Ganesh; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “record before us, we conclude that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that each challenged claim of the ’811 patent is anticipated by Douglas and by Ganesh. Accordingly, we find that claims 1–7, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19 of the ’811 patent are unpatentable. Moreover, we find that Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend adds new matter in every proposed substitute claim, and, therefore, the motion is denied.” slip op. at 80

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Because the RMTA does not meet the foundational statutory and regulatory requirements, we decline to reach Petitioner’s arguments as to the asserted unpatentability of the proposed substitute claims. C. CONCLUSION ON REVISED MOTION TO AMEND Because the RMTA does not meet foundational statutory and regulatory requirements for a motion to amend, it is denied.” slip op. at 80

  Patent outcomesUS 10,430,811 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,430,811
• Avation Medical, Inc. v. Emkinetics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2026 · PGR2024-00043 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–39 are unpatentable under Grounds 1–10; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement under Ground 11, and Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST Petitioner identifies Avation Medical, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Pet. x. Patent Owner identifies EMKinetics, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Paper 5, 1; Paper 6, 1. Neither party contests the other’s assertions on this. C.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A POSA at the time of the claimed invention would have had an undergraduate degree in the field of biomedical engineering or a related discipline, such as electrical engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices. Additional work experience could substitute for a formal degree and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶21. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed definition or offer an alternative. See generally Resp. We accept and use Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, which appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’943 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may]” slip op. at 19

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

    “same claim construction standard that is used to construe patent claims in a civil action in federal district court. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). In construing claims, district courts and the Board here, by default, give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner states that, “no terms require construction for purposes of this Petition.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner presents no express position on claim construction. See generally Resp. We do not expressly construe any claim terms. E.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “question, based on factual findings. VidStream, 981 F.3d at 1063–64. Moreover, public accessibility is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a printed publication and such depends on whether the reference was available to interested, ordinarily skilled persons exercising reasonable diligence, which is determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 1065. Particularly pertinent here is that “[w]hen there is an established publisher there is a presumption of public accessibility as of the publication date.” Id. Hulu (which cites VidStream on this issue) concerned, inter alia, whether certain asserted references were shown to be publicly available and could be considered as prior art. Hulu, 2021 WL 487622. Hulu holds that, although testimonial evidence is one way to prove public accessibility, there are also a variety of hallmarks of publication and other evidence that may be considered as a totality of the evidence to determine if an asserted reference was publicly accessible and prior art. Id. at *10–13, 21. Facts to be considered in analyzing the issue, other than testimonial evidence, include, for example, whether there is an established publisher, a copyright date/notice, other publication-related dates (impression, printing, etc.), an ISBN number, citations to the reference before (and to a lesser degree, after) the priority date at issue corroborating its availability and/or that the publisher was established, and whether the reference’s “purpose of publishing . . . was ‘dialogue with an intended audience.’” Id. at *10–21 (citing Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021)).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,844,943 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,844,943
• Xencor, Inc. v. Merus N.V.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00604 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 7–24, 26–28, and 30–32 on all four grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions in view of the existing record, we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’286 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. See Pet. Therefore, we grant institution of inter partes review. Our reasoning is discussed below. A.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A POSA at the time of the alleged invention would have at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering, molecular and structural biology, biochemical engineering, or similar disciplines; several years of post-graduate training or related experience (including industry experience) in one or more of these areas; and two or more years of experience in the production of bispecific antibodies. (EX1002, ¶¶16-17.) Pet. 15. Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 10. At this point, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed, and unopposed, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’286 patent, itself. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “The ’286 patent uses the term “heavy chain” or “heavy chains” repeatedly; however, we find no express definition of the term. See generally Ex. 1001. Rather, the ’286 patent uses the term “heavy chain” in relation to antibody structure in a way that suggests the term is standard and well known in the art. See, e.g., id. at 3:19–59 (Background). The parties’ briefing on the technology reinforces this fact. See Pet. 5–14 (“The basic structure of natural IgG comprises four protein chains—two identical heavy chains (shown in red) and two identical light chains (shown in blue)—which are arranged in a Y-shaped configuration: . . . (EX1013, 112-13; EX1002, ¶¶23-30.)”); Prelim. Resp. 3–4 (“Natural or wild type Igs have a particular structure made of two identical light (L) chains and two identical heavy (H) chains. See EX2008 at ¶ 23. Each Ig heavy chain consists of three constant domains (CH1, CH2, and CH3) and one variable domain (VH), which is also isotypes, or a functional derivative and/or fragment of these. In a preferred embodiment, Ig-like molecules are produced that are antibodies of the IgG isotype because IgG antibodies e.g. have a longer half life as compared to antibodies of other isotypes. Ex. 1001, 11:9–21. As noted above (see supra Section I.C), IgG antibodies’ heavy chains have three constant domains, but IgE and IgM have four. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that heavy chain means one variable and three constant domains, and two differently-binding Fab arms, ignores embodiments of the invention. consistent with the definition of heavy chain in the ’286 Patent. See EX2008 at ¶ 24; EX1001 at 11:58–66.”). This is also how the ’286 patent generally uses the term. See Ex. 1001, 11:58–12:1. But, the Specification does not limit its embodiments to only IgG antibodies because it also describes that the invention may be “IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgA, IgE, and IgM” type antibodies, and fragments. Ex. 1001, 11:9–21; see also supra n.10 (quoting the ’286 patent’s definition of antibody). Other embodiments would not necessarily have the heavy chains as argued by Patent Owner. There is no evidence of record that the ’286 patent’s claims or the Specification generally use or limit the term “heavy chains” (or “heavy chain”) in any way deviating from its ordinary and customary meaning in the art. Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to expressly interpret this claim language. 2. Summary on Claim Construction At this stage of the proceeding, we expressly construe no claim terms and give each claim term the ordinary and customary meaning it would have had to the person of ordinary skill in the art as of the invention date. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. If either party intends to further argue claim construction at trial, they should do so in a clearly designated section of their briefing so as to expressly identify such arguments. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (content of petition); see also Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (CTPG) at 46, 48–45 (Nov. 2019).12 Claim construction arguments should not be relegated to patentability arguments on the facts.” slip op. at 16

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

    “In brief summary, these limitations require one CH3 heavy chain to have a positive amino acid substituted in place of a neutral one, the other CH3 heavy chain to have a negative amino acid substituted in place of a neutral one, and that when the heavy chains are expressed by culturing the host cell these positive and negative amino acids interact and the antibody produced is a heterodimeric antibody. Petitioner asserts that Lazar expressly teaches engineering two CH3 domains so that, when expressed, they interact and form a heterodimeric CH3 interface by making neutral-to-positive and neutral-to-negative amino acid substitutions at known interacting residues on each CH3 domain, e.g., S364E (changing neutral serine to negative glutamic acid at residue 364) on one CH3 domain, and L368K (changing neutral leucine to positive lysine at residue 368) on the other CH3 domain; or T366D (swapping neutral threonine for negative aspartic acid at residue 366) on one CH3 domain and L351K (swapping neutral leucine for positive lysine at residue 351) on the other CH3 domain; that these residues were known in the art to be respective interfacing contact residues; that these modifications favor Fc heterodimerization; and that they result in a heterodimeric antibody (proof-of-concept shown by synthesizing and screening). Pet. 23–28 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:1–17, 17:67–18:3, 19:5–12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–119; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 121, 183, 241 (Tables 1, 2); Ex. 1007, 8:9–10, 17:19–20 (Table 1); Ex. 1008, 244–36).” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,358,286
• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,770,121
• Mastercard Incorporated And Mastercard International Incorporated v. Ov Loop, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01289 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Collinge; the Board did not reach the anticipation grounds based on Collinge or the grounds based on Fiske.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in electrical and computer engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience in the field of secure payment system,” and that “[a]dditional education in the field could be substituted for industry experience, and vice versa.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner does not suggest that its proposed level of ordinary skill materially differs from the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See id. We find, on the current record, that the ’171 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’171 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We would have reached the same conclusions in this Decision had we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “In light of the lack of any dispute over the Second Construction, a construction we find consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, we need not resolve whether the claim language also encompasses Petitioner’s First Construction. Moreover, as explained below, we find Collinge renders obvious the subject matter of the limitation under either construction. See infra Section III.D.5. For the foregoing reasons, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because here Petitioner is not relying on some other disclosure to fill a missing limitation absent from Collinge, but is instead relying only on Collinge and the knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art would possess when appreciating the teachings of Collinge. Petitioner is not suggesting Collinge needed to be modified to add the use of an APDU, but, rather, that Collinge’s disclosure already contemplated it based on the well-known background of the art. Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that “the Collinge Provisionals state the disclosures therein are intended to be used in a ‘standard’ PayPass transaction,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “the PayPass Specification (and EMV Specifications, with which the PayPass Specification complies) when reading Collinge.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1009, 8, 14–15, 22–23; Ex. 1050 ¶ 22). in a “standard” PayPass transaction and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, at a minimum, that it would have been obvious from Collinge that the “first set of data” (i.e., the encrypted payload in Collinge) would have been “usable” by the application of Collinge “to formulate an application protocol data unit response,” as required by limitation [1.C]. Petitioner further demonstrates how Collinge discloses that the “first set of data” was “useable by the application to formulate” an APDU response in addressing limitation [1.E–3], which specifically requires “generating a response.” See Pet. Reply 11 (explaining that “[d]etails of how [the encrypted payload] is used to formulate an APDU response are explained where that is separately claimed”); see also id. (citing Pet. 48–50 (addressing limitation [1.E-3])).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,032,171 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,032,171
• Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber Food Technology GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · May 31, 2024 · IPR2024-00235 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8, 10, and 14–16 based on a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are anticipated by Young and obvious over Young and Norrie.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Provisur proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art typically would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field); or (2) at least seven years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field). Pet. 12. Weber does not contest Provisur’s framing of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Because Provisur’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill described in the ’321 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt it here for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Provisur asserts that the claim terms should be construed “according to their plain and ordinary meanings as understood by [one of ordinary skill in the art] in view of the specification and prosecution history” and that “[n]o terms require an explicit construction to resolve the unpatentability 4 US 5,514,032, issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1004, “Young”). 5 US 4,979,269, issued Dec. 25, 1990 (Ex. 1005, “Norrie”). 6 US 6,929,540 B2, issued Aug. 16, 2005 (Ex. 1006, “Johnson”). 7 US 6,198,834 B1, issued Mar. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1007, “Belk”). controversy between the parties here.” Pet. 13. Weber appears to agree, its counsel stating in the parallel Missouri action that “most of [Weber’s] patent claims are plain and ordinary . . . [t]hey’re not difficult or complex claims or claim terms.” Ex. 1028, 5. There being no dispute, we need not expressly construe any claim terms at this stage, because we can decide the threshold question of institution without further construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “Weber requests that we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel Missouri action. See Prelim. Resp. 6– 17. Provisur disputes that discretionary denial is warranted (Pet. 73–77), but nonetheless submits a Sotera stipulation (Ex. 1029) in an effort to resolve the issue.8 In light of Provisur’s Sotera stipulation, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a). See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022), at 3, 7.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We disagree with Weber’s position, at least on the current record. Instead, we find that Provisur presents sufficient evidence that Young anticipates all elements of independent claims 1 and 14, including the disputed limitation requiring “automatic determination of the thickness of the fat cover.” In particular, Young’s imaging system 190 includes multiple cameras, including top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, and fat line camera 198, as well as controller 172 and real-time image processor 194. Ex. 1004, 17:34–59, 18:46–56, Figs. 2, 13. As described by Young, top plan camera 196 is primarily used to obtain “physical dimensions and characteristics” of the meat product, end view camera 197 is primarily used to determine the “height” of meat product and “to create a clear delineation along the top edge of the end” of the meat product, whereas fat line camera 198 is primarily used to determine the fat/lean separation line of the meat product. See id. at 17:59–18:39. Those disclosures by Young clearly contemplate determining specific dimensions of the meat product, and not simply identifying the fat/lean separation line, as Weber suggests. See Prelim. Resp. 19. To determine the “thickness” of the fat cover, Young’s imaging system has image processing routine 240, which “generates a fat/lean separation line and an edge line . . . representing the outer surface of the pork side proximate the fat/lean line” and uses those lines to calculate “the height, width, and length of the [meat product].” Ex. 1004, 23:12–25, 24:10–22. As part of routine 240, controller 172 uses that information to set the cutting profile of knife assembly 100 “so that the assembly follows a fixed distance from the separation line to provide the optimum fat cover for the loin.” Id. at 18:35–39 (emphasis added). Notably, according to Young, the “fixed distance” represents the “desired” thickness of fat that remains on the meat, after cutting, and “sufficiently keeps the loin from drying out, but doesn’t make the loin look too fat.” Id. at 20:60–66; see also id. at 10:39–42 (“Through control of the knife blade along several axes, assembly 100 preferably produces an optimum separation between loin and belly, with a desired fat covering left on the loin.” (emphasis added)). Young’s disclosure that image processing routine 240 determines a “fixed distance” from the loin/fat separation line at which to cut the meat product undoubtedly corresponds to the claimed “determination of the thickness of the fat cover . . . in a contactless manner.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–112. Indeed, Young discloses specific dimensions for the desired optimum fat cover to remain on the meat—“a fixed distance (preferably 0.1 inch) from the fat/lean separation line 6.” Ex. 1004, 20:55–63.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,321
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Ak Meeting IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01142 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 8 are anticipated by and obvious over Roy; claims 1–14 are obvious over Simonoff and Naef; and the listed claims are anticipated by and obvious over Chang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have been a person having, as of the priority date of the ’124 Patent: (1) at least an undergraduate degree in computer science or closely-related field, or similar advanced post-graduate education; and (2) 1–2 years of experience related to multi-user collaboration software. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30).10 Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response, but Patent Owner previously stated in its Preliminary Response that it “adopt[s] Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’124 Patent as well as the asserted prior art.” See generally Resp.; Prelim. Resp. 5. We accept Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’124 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We conclude, in agreement with Petitioner, that Mr. Landers is not evidenced to have ordinary skill in the art, as such has been defined above in Section II.B of this Decision, because he appears to have neither the requisite education (he is not evidenced to have a degree in computer science or a closely related field) nor experience (he is not evidenced to have experience in multi-user collaboration software). See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 5–7, Attachment A; see also Hr’g Tr. 23:5–25:2 (Patent Owner, given the opportunity to identify any evidence of record supporting that Mr. Landers has ordinary skill in the art, identified none). There is no argument by Patent Owner to the contrary. For the reasons above, we give no weight to the testimony presented in the Declarations of Mr. Sunatori and Mr. Landers as to the claim construction, anticipation, and obviousness issues discussed below. D.” slip op. at 20

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner states, “no construction is necessary, as the claims are obvious under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 7. This statement aligns with the testimony of Dr. Terveen. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24 (“Counsel has not instructed me to apply a construction of the claims notwithstanding their ordinary meaning. Therefore, I have applied the meaning of the claim terms of the Challenged Claims that is generally consistent with their ordinary and customary meaning, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood them in the context of the ’124 Patent at the time of the alleged invention.”). Moreover, Petitioner again stated at the final hearing that, “there are no claim construction disputes, at least none explicitly.” Hr’g Tr. 11:21–24. Similarly, Patent Owner states that “[n]o formal claim constructions are necessary because ‘claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Resp. 4 (quoting Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Therefore, we also do not expressly construe any claim language. slip op. at 21

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

    “Based on the evidence of record, we find that the annotated Roy Figure 4B, above, shows how Roy teaches: (1) user input at a client computer, the user input representing content to be shared, such as game plays, and generating messages defining that content, (2) the content being sent to a server, (3) and the server then outputting related messages to all the networked client computers (including the originating computer) so that (4) shared content (e.g., the game play) is displayed over common content (e.g., a game field) at all networked computers (including the originating computer). The above cited portions of Roy, as explained by Dr. Terveen, disclose a central server architecture for the networking of, and sharing common and user-generated content amongst, client computers, and the inherent latency involved in transmission of messages over such an architecture. See Pet. 10–23; Ex. 1001, 1:60–67, 47:44–48, 49:2–7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–60; Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:26–48, 1:53–56, 2:1–6, 3:16–56, 3:66–4:1, 4:6–29, 4:44–54, 5:17–6:14, 7:50–52, Figs. 1, 4B, 5A, 5B; Ex. 1020; Ex. 1021. Moreover, to the extent any claim element is not expressly disclosed in Roy, Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that displaying shared content over common content on networked computers, where users are collaborating or playing a game, where changes are made to the common view efficiently so that only changes are messaged as rendering commands rather than re-rendering the entire “game world” would provide the benefit of preserving bandwidth consumption. Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 58.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 10,963,124 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,963,124
• Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00999 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 on all five grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “As such, we find it error for the Examiner to have not expressly considered Tacken in the context of the other references Alexion pointed to as allegedly demonstrating the “consistent teachings as of March 15, 2007 that ‘eculizumab was the IgG4 antibody of Thomas.” Ex. 2102, 14840– 14843, 14854. But for this error, the Examiner would have better appreciated the disclosure of Mueller PCT. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178, 180–182 (Dr. Ravetch’s testimony that “most critically, Alexion failed to provide its own 2005 publication, the Tacken article, that teaches that “eculizumab” contains an IgG2/G4 constant domain”).” slip op. at 62

  • Other 314aDenied

    “IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner points to § 314(a)27 as a basis for denying institution but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 2 (citation), 4 (citation), 17 (section heading), 32 (citation in parenthetical). At best, Patent Owner asserts that if we find “that fewer than all five Grounds meet the standard for Section 325(d), institution of Samsung’s petition should still be denied in full, because institution on all five Grounds ‘would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources.’” Prelim. Resp. 32 (citing Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative)). Because we decline to exercise our discretion with respect to any of the Grounds under § 325(d), the Board’s Deeper decision is inapposite.” slip op. at 65

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not presently dispute this definition “except to clarify that the POSA would have at least two years of experience in engineering monoclonal antibodies for human therapeutic use, either in the laboratory or industry.” Prelim. Resp. 51 (further arguing that Petitioner cannot prove unpatentability of the challenged claims under either party’s definition). At this stage in the proceeding, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan, as being both unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s additional qualification. In this respect, it appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” encompasses Patent Owner’s proposed modification, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158,” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,725,504
• Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00998 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3 over all six asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-Reply, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’880 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’880 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. We note that there are disputed issues in this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and § 314(a) concerning discretionary denial; however,” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not presently dispute this definition “except to clarify that the POSA would have at least two years of experience in engineering monoclonal antibodies for human therapeutic use, either in the laboratory or industry.” Prelim. Resp. 48; see also id. at 48–49 (arguing that Petitioner cannot prove unpatentability of the challenged claims under either party’s definition). 23 At this stage in the proceeding, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan, as being both (largely) unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s additional qualification. In this respect, it appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” encompasses Patent Owner’s proposed modification, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Our decision whether to institute, however, does not turn on which party’s definition of the skilled artisan is used, and our determinations would be unchanged if we applied Patent Owner’s definition. Further, we note that evidence may be presented as the case progresses to support some other proposed definition of the skilled artisan, which may influence our determination of this issue. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 23

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

    “Neither party requests the construction of any claim term. See, e.g., Pet. 18. We need only construe the claims to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). At this stage in the proceeding, we find it unnecessary to construe the language of any challenged claim because the claim language is readily understandable to the person of ordinary skill in the art on its face, within the context of the claims.” slip op. at 25

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

    “TPO mimetic peptide graft in Fab clone X4b has been transplanted into the heavy chain CDR3 region of another antibody framework, 5G1.1. . . . Construction of 5G1.1 is described in U.S. Application Ser. No. 08/487,283, incorporated herein by reference.” Prelim. Resp. 50 (emphasis added); Ex. 1004 ¶ 191. It is not disputed here that U.S. Patent Application 08/487,283 issued as Evans. See Ex. 1005, code (21); see generally Prelim. Resp. The portion of Evans relating to “Construction of 5G1.1” (Ex. 1004 28 ¶ 191, emphasis added) appears to be (or at least includes) Example 11, which is titled “Construction and Expression of Recombinant mAbs.” Ex. 1005, 42:55–58 (emphasis added). According to Dr. Ravetch, “Evans’[s] Example 11 teaches construction of . . . humanized 5G1.1 scFv constructs.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. And, none of the other Evans Examples addressing an anti- C5 antibody or a 5G1.1 antibody designate their respective disclosure as relating to “construction,” as per the title of Example 11 and the sentence of Bowdish expressly incorporating Evans. See Ex. 1005, 33:1–42:54 (Examples 1–10); Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. Thus, on this record, we find that Petitioner’s pointing to the antibodies (or fragments) of Evans’s Example 11 for use as a starting point for Bowdish’s invention to be more reasonable than Patent Owner’s arguments that antibodies would have been selected from some other Example. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not dispute that, if Bowdish and Evans are read as asserted by Petitioner and Dr. Ravetch, the antibody sequences of claim 2, i.e., SEQ ID NO: 2 and SEQ ID NO: 4, are disclosed. Petitioner’s reading is also consistent with the Specification of the ’880 patent, which cites Evans (among others) for the proposition that “[s]uitable anti-C5 antibodies are known to those of skill in the art” and, in particular, that Evans discloses “antibodies which are specific to human complement . . . . includ[ing] a preferred whole antibody (now named eculizumab),” and “methods of engineering such antibodies.” Ex. 1001, 10:57–65, 12:13–21, 12:43–47. Therefore, we do not find any error in Petitioner’s assertion that Bowdish/Evans discloses the antibody of claim 2.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,718,880
• Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00933 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claim 1 under all four asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claim is anticipated or obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The two proposed definitions of the ordinarily skilled artisan are very similar, except that Patent Owner’s description more-specifically defines the field of experience of the artisan. At this stage in the proceedings, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, as being both generally unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s supplemental definition. It appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” includes Patent Owner’s proposed level of experience. Pet. 12–13. We also take into account the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Our decision whether to institute does not turn on which party’s definition of the skilled artisan is used, and our determinations would be unchanged if we applied Patent Owner’s supplemented definition. Further, we note that evidence may be presented as the case progresses to support some other proposed definition of the skilled artisan, which may influence our determination of this issue. C.” slip op. at 15

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

    “CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner states, “Petitioner does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not mention claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage in the proceedings, and for the purposes of this decision, we find it unnecessary to construe the language of claim 1 because the claim language is readily understandable on its face and there is no dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As the case continues, we may determine that certain claim language should be interpreted. D.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “In view of the unique record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that all of the references relied on by Petitioner here, “were previously presented to the Office” as required by § 325(d) and Advanced Bionics. Prelim. Resp. 19. Accordingly, we proceed to part two of the analysis.” slip op. at 55

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) AND FINTIV Patent Owner points to § 314(a) as a basis for denying institution, but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 17–32; see generally Prelim. Sur-Reply 6. Under certain circumstances, the Board may apply our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution in light of a parallel district court proceeding involving the same patent. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). But, as noted by Petitioner, the patent at issue here “has never been asserted in any litigation.” Pet. 49. Accordingly, we also decline to exercise our discretion under Section 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 61

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,732,149

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.