• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00321 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 16, and 17 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required purge-tower teachings or prior-art status.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of skill, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’324 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “According to the ’713 patent, “[p]urge tower 24 itself may be . . . recycled or otherwise discarded as desired.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28. This description provides some support for Patent Owner’s view, because a purge tower too intimately integrated with the part would be difficult or impossible to recycle or discard. This is further supported by the ’713 patent’s statement that “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Id. at 8:30–34. It also is supported by Dr. Hickner’s testimony that the ’713 patent “clearly shows . . . the 24 purge tower separated from the part” and that “the purge tower is a separate physical object.” Ex. 2016, 28:8–10, 64:1–9. On the other hand, there is evidence supporting Petitioner’s view that, as long as the purge tower is generally separate from the part and the support structure, it may still make contact with those portions of the print. As noted above, “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Ex. 1001, 8:30–34. This language does not exclude locations adjacent to or in contact with the part or the support structure. Thus, determine that a “purge tower,” as that term is used in the context of the ’713 patent, may not be an integrated portion of a printed part or support structure but need not be free of all contact with the printed part or support structure.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “There is evidence of record to support both Petitioner’s view and Patent Owner’s view. On the record developed at trial, however, we cannot say that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer teaches printing a layer of a purge tower each time the printer switches one extruder to the operating mode. Because proving the obviousness of claims 1 and 16 requires such a showing, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious over the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer. 5. Analysis of Remaining Claims Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 or claim 16. Accordingly, they all include the limitations of either claim 1 or claim 16. Because, as discussed above, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, Petitioner also has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 would have been obvious over that combination of references.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther

    “On the record developed at trial, we agree with Petitioner. According to several industry forum posts, people interested in three-dimensional printing located the website where KISSlicer was posted between February 2012 and April 2012. Ex. 1028, 1 (post discussing and directing others to KISSlicer on April 11, 2012); Ex. 1031, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on March 16, 2012, and March 21, 2012); Ex. 1032, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on February 11, 2012, and February 14, 2012). Thus, not only was it possible for people of ordinary skill in the art to locate KISSlicer; people of ordinary skill in the art actually did locate it. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer was publicly accessible.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,421,713 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,421,713
• AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00402 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s revised non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–4 and substituting claims 7 and 8, which Petitioner did not prove unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). A “patent owner bears the burden of persuasion to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the motion to amend complies” with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1). Specifically, a patent owner must demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent; and (4) the amendment does not introduce new matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)–(b). For the reasons explained below, Patent Owner satisfies its burden of persuasion to show that the amendments comply with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties rely on expert testimony for their respective positions relating to the number of years of experience needed to attain ordinary skill, but neither expert cites supporting evidence for their testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 33; Ex. 2002 ¶ 15. Our decision is the same regardless of whether the length of experience is two years or three. We find Patent Owner’s proposed “wireless communications” is more consistent with the ’958 patent than Petitioner’s proposed “telecommunication,” which encompasses a variety of technologies including, e.g., landline and wireless telephones, cable, and satellite. See Ex. 1001, 1:11–62 (describing the invention in terms of wireless communications). Accordingly, we adopt a modified version of Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, substituting “wireless communications” for “telecommunication.” Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the recited second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. The plain meaning of “first type” and “second type” indicates that the first type and second type are different in kind. RMTA 22 (App. A). Our interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which explains that second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. As Patent Owner points out, the ’958 patent discloses “first type of system information (1TYP SIB) is . . . essential . . . for initial system access” and “second type of system information (2TYP SIB) is nonessential system information . . . defined as all other types of information, and thus excludes the [] information required for initial access.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:34– 46); see also Ex. 1001, Abstract (interchangeably using the terms second type and non-essential). Despite Petitioner’s argument that this disclosure is non-limiting and directed to a disclaimed example embodiment (Opp. 8–9), Petitioner could not identify any embodiment, among the approximately forty disclosed embodiments, describing something other than the first type SIB being essential information and the second type SIB being non-essential information. Tr. 22:18–26. Even the Petition acknowledges that “the ’958 Patent further classifies a second type of system information, the ‘non-essential’ SI, which is defined as all other types of information excluding that first type of information required for initial access.” Pet. 5. Furthermore, the prior art of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill would have understood second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 48 (describing two categories of system information, “essential SI” and “Other SI”). Patent Owner’s expert also understood the recited first and second type SIBs as being mutually exclusive. See Ex. 1011, 49:10–13. For the above reasons, we do not agree with Petitioner that the recited second type SIB lacks any requirements, nor do we interpret claims 7 and 8 such that the first type SIB could be a second type SIB.” slip op. at 19

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

    “(d) Limitation 7h: Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation 7h are insufficient because they fail to address the limitation as written and improperly incorporate previous arguments by reference. For example, Petitioner did not map the recited “group identifier” when opposing Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend. See Opp. 16–17. In its Sur-reply, Petitioner contends that limitation 7h’s requirement of transmitting the group identifier was previously “set out in Patent Owner’s prior papers,” but does not refer to any specific papers or exhibits. Pet. Surreply 11–12. We decline to search for and piece together Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to develop a persuasive theory of unpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. section 42.6(a)(3). Petitioner similarly failed to address adequately where Lee discloses or suggests the recited “compressed format” and “plural parameters.” See Opp. 16–17. Aside from the above concerns, we also do not see sufficient explanation with respect to limitation 7h’s requirement that the transmitting by broadcast be based on a comparison of the value tag. Petitioner argues that, because Patent Owner does not dispute limitation 7g, “it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the same value tag[] to determine the system information broadcast in Lee’s compressed format embodiment.” Pet. Sur-reply 12. This conclusory statement is not supported by any citations to evidence and was improperly introduced in the Sur-reply. Moreover, whether it was obvious to determine what system information is broadcast is not commensurate with the claim scope because limitation 7h requires that the broadcasting (not the broadcast content) be based on a comparison of the value tag. See supra III.B.4 and IV.B. Further, we are not persuaded that Lee’s transmitting by broadcast is” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,841,958 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,841,958
• Inergy Technology, Inc. v. Force Mos Technology Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not proven unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish the claimed epitaxial layer or the required coverage of the trench sidewalls.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as having “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37, 57). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 6. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by unopposed declaration testimony and appears to be consistent with the disclosures of the ’634 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Ex. 1001, 1:6–2:33 (describing the invention and related art in terms of integrated circuit design and fabrication); see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1–6 (Hirler); Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1–37 (Kobayashi); Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 2–29 (Shiraishi). Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner argues that “the sidewalls of said trenches in said base layer are covered” should be construed to mean that “the entire sidewalls of” those trenches are covered. Pet. 18–19. We refer to this as “the sidewall limitation.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the disclosure and file history of the ’634 patent support its position on the sidewall limitation. Id. Patent Owner, for its part, observes that, after the filing of the Petition. two District Courts adopted the construction proposed by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2010, 6–9; Ex. 2011, 23). Patent Owner also agrees to apply Petitioner’s construction for purposes of this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that an express construction of the sidewall limitation is necessary to this Decision, id., and adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition because it is supported by the record. No other claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “On this record, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any claim is unpatentable under any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 of the ’634 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Alternatively, even if we set aside that timing issue, Dr. Liu’s bare opinion, advanced for the first time during cross-examination, that an epitaxial layer is “obvious” from Hirler’s disclosure is inadequate to support the challenges. Id. at 24–25. We accord little weight to Dr. Liu’s opinion because it is conclusory. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). In any event, Petitioner does not meet, on this record, the “high standard” required to establish an inherent disclosure of an epitaxial layer in Hirler. PO Resp. 24.6 Dr. Liu opined for the first time during cross-examination “that it would have been impossible to create Hirler’s more lightly doped n- drift zone layer on top of its more heavily doped n+ substrate layer other than via epitaxy.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 2014, 164:16– 165:20). But Patent Owner effectively refutes that proposition with evidence that such a layer “could be created by counter-doping,” even if, as Dr. Liu contends, counter-doping may have been less ideal due to “disadvantageous mobility.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 133; Ex. 2014, 166:15–167:8).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,629,634 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,629,634
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00775 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27 and 28 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the petitioner did not establish that Olgaard or Acharya was prior art; the revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Relying on Dr. Freedman’s testimony, Unified argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) an undergraduate degree in electrical and computing engineering or a closely related field; and (2) two or more years of experience in wireless content transmission,” where “[m]ore relevant experience could compensate for less education, and vice versa.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–38). Flexiworld does not contest Unified’s description of the level of ordinary skill for this proceeding. See PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 67). Because Unified’s description is supported by uncontroverted testimonial evidence and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’257 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:20–5:35 (“Technical Field” and “Background” sections of the ’257 patent, describing background knowledge relating to wireless content transmission between electronic devices).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Unified argues that “all terms should be given their plain meaning,” and does not propose any explicit constructions. See Pet. 8. In the context of this proceeding, Flexiworld agrees. See PO Resp. 29. We do not find it necessary to explicitly construe any terms to resolve the issues in this proceeding. 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))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. Conclusion as to Obviousness For the reasons above, we determine that evidence independent of inventor testimony corroborates (1) a conception date no later than October 22, 2000 and (2) reasonably continuous diligence in reducing the claimed invention to practice until January 19, 2001. Having considered the evidence as a whole under a rule-of-reason analysis, we determine that Unified has not shown that the conception date for the claimed invention was on or after October 24, 2000, or that the inventors did not exercise reasonably continuous diligence during the critical period between October 24, 2000 and January 19, 2001. Unified relies on a priority date of October 24, 2000 for Olgaard and a priority date of December 22, 2000 for Acharya. See Pet. 1–2 & n.2; see also Ex. 1005, code (63); Ex. 1007, codes (22), (43). However, the corroborated conception date for claims 27 and 28 antedates the above priority dates for both Olgaard and Acharya. See supra Section III.C.1. Thus, Unified has not shown that either Olgaard or Acharya is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2006). Unified provides no theory of obviousness that does not depend on either Olgaard or Acharya being prior art. See Pet. 2, 8–80.” slip op. at 20

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

    “claimed inventions were conceived no later than October 22, 2000, and Unified has not shown to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. First, we find credible Mr. Chang’s testimony that Exhibit 2013 and other related drafts, including their filenames and metadata, have not been altered. Ex. 2031 ¶ 1. We regard the metadata as the most reliable indicator of the latest date each draft was completed. Although the filename dates may differ from the metadata dates, these minor differences do not call into question the reliability of the metadata as the last date on which the drafts were modified. Most significantly, the “last modified” date for Exhibit 2013 is October 22, 2000. That the inventors produced at least three other drafts and then filed a provisional application just ten days later on November 1, 2000 further supports a conception date before October 24, 2000. Ex. 2031 ¶ 6; Ex. 2016; Ex. 2040.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,836,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,836,257
• Berkeley Lights, Inc. v. The University Of British ColumbiaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01249 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish selective recovery or a sufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on Dr. Meinhart’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, (bio)chemistry, or an equivalent degree relevant to microfluidic biological cell analysis, and three to five years of experience with the construction of and application of microfluidic devices to cell culture and analysis.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 40). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 19–20). We find Petitioner’s uncontested articulation to be reasonable in light of the subject matter involved in the ’408 patent and its description of the relevant prior-art background. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–2:54 (describing the field and related art as relating to the construction and use of microfluidic devices in cell culture and analysis). Thus, we adopt it for our decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner contends that “no terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the challenges in this proceeding.” Pet. 9; accord Pet. 12. Petitioner also notes that in the parallel district court proceedings, Patent Owner has proposed constructions for the terms chamber and retaining position that differ from Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1013 App’x A, 1, 3 (Patent Owner’s proposed constructions); Ex. 1021, 7, 8 (Petitioner’s proposed constructions); Ex. 1002 ¶ 44). In those proceedings, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for chamber is “an enclosed space within a microfluidic device,” and its proposed construction for retaining position is “a location in the chamber at which a cell is maintained during cell culture and media exchange.” Ex. 1013, 6, 8. Although Petitioner does not contend that its arguments rely on the choice of construction for these terms, Petitioner adopts Patent Owner’s constructions for this proceeding. Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not contest these proposed constructions, or propose any other explicit constructions. See generally PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner that we do not need to construe the terms chamber and retaining position to decide the issues presented in this proceeding, and to the extent we need to interpret the meaning of any claim language, we address the interpretations below in the context of the prior art. 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))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “selectively recovering a cell based on the response in the monitoring step. Although Dimov discloses non-selective recovery and briefly lists a few general techniques that might be used for either mixing or recovery, Dimov does not specifically indicate which of the techniques would be useful for recovery rather than just mixing, and Dimov does not explicitly disclose that any cell recovery would be selective. Nor has Petitioner shown that Dimov inherently discloses selectively recovering any particular cell that has been cultured and monitored, because, as Dr. Gale persuasively testifies, Dimov’s removal techniques could, as far as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known based on Dimov’s disclosure, be merely for “removing . . . unwanted particles out of the capture chamber/trench.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 64; see also id. ¶ 63 (“Dimov . . . may suggest removing cellular materials (rather than intact cells) after capture . . . .”). In other words, given Dimov’s general focus on performing experiments within the trenches and the lack of any specific disclosure about how or why to remove cells, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Dimov’s potential cell-removal techniques would have necessarily been based on a response of a specific cell being cultured and monitored in limitation 1D. We also agree with Patent Owner that Dimov does not disclose any specifics about how to carry out a selective cell removal based on one of Dimov’s listed techniques, such as laser tweezers. See PO Resp. 8–9. Nor does Petitioner meet its burden of showing that such a technique would have been within the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. “In order to anticipate, a prior art disclosure must also be enabling, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Given the labyrinthine outlet channels leading from Dimov’s chambers to the common waste stream and Dimov’s lack of any disclosure of a way to identify and extract cells in the outlet streams, we credit Dr. Gale’s testimony that there would have been substantial obstacles to recovering any specific cells that had been liberated from a trench in Dimov’s device. See Ex. 2012 ¶ 63. Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have overcome those obstacles without undue experimentation.” slip op. at 23

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “18 Patent Owner contends that these arguments are untimely, and we agree at least as to certain of the arguments. See Paper 27, Nos. 6, 9, 10; see Paper 28, Nos. 6, 9, 10 (Petitioner’s responses). The new arguments introduce new theories as to how to combine Park and Kovac, including additional steps or new modifications necessary for a successful combination, which could have been presented in the Petition but were not. Nevertheless, as we discuss below, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Petitioner also contends, for the first time, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have addressed the problem of Park’s downward-forcing circulation patterns19 by starting with flow turned off and then turning on flow “after levitation begins, including after the cell has been pushed up out of a well high enough to be clear of recirculating flow lines created once it is turned on.” Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶¶ 175– 177); see also id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶ 193).” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 10,087,408 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,087,408
• Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Interdigital Technology CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01505 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that Zhang disclosed the claimed response to a non-zero grant construed as a power ratio greater than zero.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Here, we determine that the term “power ratio” in the involved parenthetical in the Specification is a definition, and not merely an illustrative example, of a “grant.” First, the Specification does not identify any other type of grant. Dr. Mahon testifies that the Specification does not provide an example of any other type of grant. Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Petitioner offers no rebuttal expert testimony and identifies no other type of grant disclosed in the Specification. See Pet. Reply 1–5. We credit Dr. Mahon’s unrebutted testimony that the Specification does not identify any other type of grant. Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Thus, the parenthetical at issue in this case does not exclude any grant described in the Specification (nor, as set forth in Section II.B.2.ii, any grant set forth by ordinary meaning of the term grant based on the extrinsic evidence of record).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner offers no extrinsic evidence, other than the testimony of Dr. Kakaes, regarding the ordinary meaning of the term “grant,” and Dr. Kakaes cites no extrinsic evidence to support his definition of the term “non-zero grant.” Pet. 12; Pet. Reply 1–5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65. Dr. Kakaes does not separately address the meaning of “grant.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65. We find Dr. Mahon’s testimony and the 3GPP Technical Specification persuasive. As set forth above, the 3GPP Technical Specification describes grants as power ratios—a fact that Petitioner does not dispute. Pet. Reply 1– 5. Further, as set forth above, in light of the Specification’s references to 3GPP standards and the 3GPP recitations in the preambles of claims 1 and 6, 3GPP standards from the time of the ’873 patent are highly relevant evidence to an ordinarily skilled artisan of the ordinary meaning of the terms “grant” and “non-zero grant.” iii. A Non-zero Power Ratio is a Power Ratio Greater than Zero Dr. Mahon testifies that a “non-zero grant” should be construed as “a power ratio greater than zero.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 33. Dr. Mahon explains that a power ratio cannot be negative, so a “non-zero” power grant must be greater than zero. Id. ¶ 38. Petitioner does not dispute Dr. Mahon’s testimony that a power ratio cannot be negative. Pet. Reply 1–5. Petitioner further does not dispute that if a “grant” is construed to be a “power ratio,” a “non-zero grant” should be construed to be a “power ratio greater than zero.” Id. We credit Dr. Mahon’s testimony that a power ratio cannot be negative. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38. Thus, in light of the Specification’s and extrinsic evidence’s teachings that a “grant” is a “power ratio,” we construe “non-zero grant” to be a “power ratio greater than zero.”” slip op. at 19

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

    “2. Claim 1 Claim 1 recites the following limitation: triggering transmission of scheduling information (SI), from the WTRU to a Node-B, in response to the WTRU having a non-zero grant smaller than needed preventing the WTRU from sending a medium access control protocol data unit (PDU) of any of a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows. [“responsive limitation of claim 1”] Ex. 1001, 7:36–8:6 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not argue, let alone prove, that Zhang discloses the transmission of scheduling information “in response to the WTRU having a non-zero grant smaller than needed” when “non-zero grant” is construed as a “power ratio greater than zero.” Pet. 25–29; Pet. Reply 1–5, 12–13. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claim 1 is anticipated by Zhang. 3. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends on claim 1. Ex. 1001, 8:15–16. Petitioner relies on its showing for claim 1 for the limitations that claim 5 incorporates from claim 1. Pet. 29–30. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claim 5 is anticipated by Zhang.” slip op. at 25

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

    “B. Ground 2: Asserted Obviousness over Zhang Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang. Pet. 5. For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 32–33. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1 and 6 would have been obvious over Zhang. For claims 5 and 10, Petitioner also relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 33. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 5 and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang. C. Ground 3: Asserted Obviousness over Zhang and TS 25.321 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang and TS 25.321. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues “[t]o the extent one might argue that Zhang does not . . . sufficiently disclose a WTRU configured to process ‘a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows,’ it would have been obvious to include that functionality in the WTRU of Zhang in view TS 25.321.” Id. at 34 (emphasis omitted). For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 34–40, 48. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang and TS 25.321. D. Ground 4: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 over Zhang and Lohr Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues “[t]o the extent one might argue that Zhang alone, or Zhang in combination with TS 25.321 do not does not sufficiently disclose a WTRU configured to process “a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows,’ it would have also been obvious to include that functionality in the WTRU of Zhang in view” of Lohr. Id. at 52–53 (emphasis omitted). For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 52–55. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr. E. Ground 5: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–10 over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr for the reasons set forth for Grounds 1–4. Id. at 56. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321. See Sections III.A–D above.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,797,873 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,797,873
• St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 2, 2019 · IPR2018-00109 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 18 and 20 were not shown unpatentable because Leonhardt did not disclose the claimed central frame structure and the proposed Leonhardt-Johnson combination lacked adequate motivation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). We find, based on our review of the record before us, that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the record, including the asserted prior art and, for the purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to Rule 42.100(b)). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification, and absent any special definition, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claim 1 recites that the flexible valve element is attached to the “central portion of the frame.” Patent Owner argues that “central portion of the frame” means “central structural frame portion,” which cannot refer solely to an “empty space.” PO Resp. 3–7. Patent Owner explains that, during the related litigation, Petitioner agreed that the central portion of the frame must “actually be part of the structure of the frame.” Id. at 6 (quoting Ex. 2001, 119–20). Accordingly, we discern no dispute on the issue of whether “central portion of the frame” refers to a structural portion of the frame; it does.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner’s argument that Leonhardt’s valve is attached to the central part of the frame of claim 1 fails. Leonhardt’s valve is undeniably attached to its frame because the valve is sutured or glued to stent 26. Claim 1 requires the valve element to be attached to a portion of the frame located along the radial centerline. Ex. 1001, 19:19–20. However, Leonhardt’s frame (stent 26 coupled via connecting bar 29) is a hollow cylinder devoid of structure located along its centerline. Ex. 1017, Figure 1C. Thus, regardless of how Leonhardt’s valve is attached to stent 26 and connecting bar 29, it is not attached to a structure “located along a centerline” as recited in claim 1 and thus claims 18 and 20. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt anticipates claims 18 and 20. 4. Summary For the reasons expressed above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt anticipates claims 18 and 20.” slip op. at 14

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

    “F. CLAIMS 18 AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS BY LEONHARDT Petitioner argues that even if Leonhardt fails to describe elements as claimed, an ordinarily skilled artisan would consider that “variations” of Leonhardt to meet the claimed limitations would have been obvious “in view of the general knowledge in the art and the limited number of ways of using known elements to achieve expected results.” Pet. 42. Petitioner also argues that “[a]s these are method claims, and not device claims, even if the valve device were somehow unobviously different, which it is not, that difference should be given minimal weight in evaluating the obviousness of the method.” Id. at 44. Petitioner cites no authority for this proposition, and we are aware of none. Claims 18 and 20 are directed to a “transluminal method of inserting an artificial valve as set forth in claim 1.” Id. at 21:1–25 (claim 18), 21:31– 50 (claim 20). Each time claims 18 and 20 refer to an “artificial valve” steps of the recited methods, they refer to the valve set forth in claim 1. None of Petitioner’s arguments persuasively addresses Leonhardt’s failure to describe a flexible valve element attached to a central portion of the frame located along a centerline. See Part II.E. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt alone renders claims 18 and 20 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,821,297 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,821,297
• Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2014 · IPR2013-00131 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 12 were not shown unpatentable because Patent Owner proved reduction to practice before Raymond’s effective prior art date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “preponderance of the evidence that Raymond is entitled to the benefit of the earlier provisional filing date. To be entitled to rely on the February 15, 2000 provisional filing date, Petitioner had to establish that it relies on subject matter from Raymond that is present in and supported by its provisional. In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Therefore, an applicant is not entitled to a patent [under § 102(e) (2)] if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application . . . .”); Ex Parte Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d 1606 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).” slip op. at 6

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that Raymond is entitled to the benefit of the earlier provisional filing date. To be entitled to rely on the February 15, 2000 provisional filing date, Petitioner had to establish that it relies on subject matter from Raymond that is present in and supported by its provisional. In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Therefore, an applicant is not entitled to a patent [under § 102(e) (2)] if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application . . . .”); Ex Parte Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d 1606 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).” slip op. at 6

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that Raymond is entitled to the benefit of the earlier provisional filing date. To be entitled to rely on the February 15, 2000 provisional filing date, Petitioner had to establish that it relies on subject matter from Raymond that is present in and supported by its provisional. In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Therefore, an applicant is not entitled to a patent [under § 102(e) (2)] if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application . . . .”); Ex Parte Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d 1606 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).” slip op. at 6

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

    “We conclude, therefore, that Patent Owner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that by March 28, 2000, a sample product was produced for Patent Owner demonstrating that the Rexam process was suitable for its intended purpose. The testimony establishes that the Rexam process was successful in injection molding a plastic product with a lenticular image that would be acceptable to the intended end user. Walker Decl. ¶ 11; Krause Decl. ¶ 7.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,635,196 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,635,196

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.