- Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2026 · PGR2025-00028 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 8–20 are unpatentable under § 102, § 103, or § 101; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish its limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“1. Legal Standards “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMixed
“2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Kinetic Concepts, 688 F.3d at 1368). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); accord In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “conclusory statements” amount to an “insufficient articulation[] of motivation to combine”; “instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (quoting In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 36
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionMixed
“because the “user interface” limitations merely apply the recited abstract idea on a generic mobile device without meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. See 2025 Guidance, at 4–5. For example, these limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the mobile device (or any other computer device), and instead are “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on” the mobile device. Id. Indeed, the ’423 patent specification describes only a generic “swipe-to-pay” feature. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:13–33, Figs. 8C, 10A–10D. This supports our conclusion here that the claim 11 limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (“[T]he specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and “it must describe” slip op. at 108
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptMixed
“because the “user interface” limitations merely apply the recited abstract idea on a generic mobile device without meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. See 2025 Guidance, at 4–5. For example, these limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the mobile device (or any other computer device), and instead are “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on” the mobile device. Id. Indeed, the ’423 patent specification describes only a generic “swipe-to-pay” feature. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:13–33, Figs. 8C, 10A–10D. This supports our conclusion here that the claim 11 limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (“[T]he specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and “it must describe” slip op. at 108
Patent outcomesUS 11,972,423 mixed§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,972,423 - Kubota North America Corporation v. Vermeer Manufacturing CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2026 · IPR2025-00381 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable: claims 1–8 and 10 are anticipated by KR996, and claim 9 is obvious over KR996 and Bares.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Independent Claim 1 Petitioner contends that KR996 both anticipates and renders obvious independent claim 1. Pet. 23–46. To support its arguments, Petitioner identifies certain passages in the cited references and explains the significance of each passage with respect to the corresponding claim limitation. Id. Patent Owner argues that KR996 does not disclose a “loader support” and thus fails to disclose limitations requiring “linkage[s]” and an “actuator” attached to the “loader support.” See PO Resp. 37–40; PO Sur-reply 20. In addition, Patent Owner presents evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. See PO Resp. 51–68; PO Sur-reply 23–27. We address each issue in turn. a. The Loader Support Limitations Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “[1.3] a loader support having a first side and a second side . . . ; [1.5] a first linkage connected to the first side of the loader support . . . ; [1.6] a second linkage connected to the first side of the loader support . . . ; [1.7] a second actuator for raising the loader, the second actuator being connected to the loader support.” Ex. 1001, 6:56, 6:60–7:1 (collectively, the “loader support limitations”). As to the recitation of “a loader support having a first side and a second side,” Petitioner provides the following annotated version of Figure 9 of KR996: Pet. 30. In the annotated version of Figure 9 of KR996 above, Petitioner added (1) red text and arrows identifying a “loader support,” a “first side of loader support,” and a “second side of loader support” and (2) blue text identifying a “loader.” Id. Petitioner adds that “the loader support includes the portions of the frame of the KR996 vehicle that when in operation, support the attached loader unit 40 having loader arms of the booms 44.” Pet. 29. Petitioner also states that “KR996’s loader support includes the bracket to which the link 45 and boom cylinder 46 attach, as well as the frame protrusion, connected to the bracket, to which the forward link attaches.” Id. (citing Velinsky Pet. Decl. ¶ 72).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“2. Dependent Claim 9 Petitioner contends that KR996, modified based on Bares, satisfies the additional limitations of claim 9. Pet. 60–69. To support its arguments, Petitioner identifies certain passages in the cited references and explains the significance of each passage with respect to the corresponding claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also articulates reasons to combine the relied-upon aspects of KR996 and Bares and explains why there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 62–65. Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had reason to combine KR996 and Bares. See PO Resp. 41–50; PO Sur-reply 22–23. Patent Owner also relies on its prior arguments that KR996 does not disclose the “loader support” limitations in independent claim 1. See PO Resp. 50. In addition, Patent Owner relies on the same evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness discussed above. See PO Resp. 51–68; PO Sur-reply 21–27. We address each issue in turn. a. The Reasons to Combine KR996 and Bares Petitioner presents reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined KR996 and Bares and why the proposed combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 62–65; Velinsky Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 157–162. After discussing why KR996 and Bares are analogous art to the claimed invention, Petitioner states that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bares with KR996 to produce a predictable and beneficial configuration of a tracked vehicle” in that “[t]he simple substitution of Bares’ track assembly for the wheels in the KR996 vehicle would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success that both KR996 and Bares relate to similar vehicle types with a similar mainframe having a drive mechanism attached thereto.” Pet. 63 (citing Velinsky Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 158–162). Petitioner asserts that “designing this vehicle type with a drive” slip op. at 64
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, secondary considerations (objective evidence of non-obviousness) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s objective indicia of non-obviousness. In order to accord substantial weight to secondary considerations in an obviousness analysis, “the evidence of secondary considerations must have a ‘nexus’ to the claims, i.e., there must be ‘a legally and factually sufficient connection’ between the evidence and the patented invention.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Although the patent owner bears the initial burden of proving a nexus (WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999)), a presumption of nexus may be appropriate if the patent owner shows “the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Polaris Indus, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added)); Quanergy, 24 F.4th at 1417. On the other hand, “[w]hen the [product] is not coextensive with the patented invention—for example, if the patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or process,” the patent owner is not entitled to a presumption of nexus. Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392. A patent owner may establish nexus, either through (1) the use of a rebuttable presumption that arises when certain conditions are met or (2) a direct showing of nexus. In the first, a patent owner may rely on a rebuttable presumption of nexus as follows:” slip op. at 43
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“2. Analysis “The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.20. Exhibit 1005 is an English language translation of Korean Patent No. 10-1041996. Exhibit 1006 is an English language translation of Japanese document JP2004-17705A. Exhibit 1014 is an English language translation of Korean Patent No. 10-1023528. A Certification of Translation signed by Takashi Maeshiro of HC Language Solutions, Inc., accompanies each of Exhibits 1005, 1006, and 1014. Ex. 1005 at 28; Ex. 1006 at 16; Ex. 1014 at 16. Each Certification of Translation is worded substantially the same except for the references to the document at issue and the source language being either Korean or Japanese. Exhibit 1005’s Certification of Translation, for example, states: I, Takashi Maeshiro, on behalf of HC Language Solutions, Inc., do solemnly and sincerely declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the attached text represents a translation of Korean Patent No. 10-1041996, that the translation was performed by HC Language Solutions, Inc., and that the translation represents a true, correct, and faithful translation from Korean to English in a form that reflects the intention and meaning of the original text. I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Ex. 1005 at 28 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,465,891 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,465,891 - Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-00634 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 8–13, 15, 16, and 19–24 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho, with claims 16 and 19 also relying on the Quick Connection Art; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner proposes that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] in the field to which the ’105 Patent is directed would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering or a related field or, as a substitute, at least two years of work or” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of “integrally molded with” as “molded together as a single structure.” Paper 21, 15.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that: a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the proposed modification, nor does the Petition include any analysis regarding why a POSITA would be motivated to move from a vertical extended portion to a radial extended portion. Indeed, a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar as it introduces another sudden directional change into the fluid flow system. PO Resp. 58–59 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 242).” slip op. at 32
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the ’105 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 63–65; PO Sur-reply 26–29. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 of the bowl fill valve 109, the flow of water through the bowl fill valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288. Further, the ’606 Application states: The bowl fill valve 109 may be, for example, a ball valve, a gate valve, a globe valve, a plug valve, a diaphragm valve, a butterfly valve, a needle valve, a sliding gate, a quick turn valve, a knife valve or any other appropriate type of valve as can be appreciated by those with ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 9,103,105 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,103,105 - Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00633 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho; claims 2–6 and 16–18 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Brown’s adapter tube 23 (i.e., the extended portion) does not extend radially from a longitudinal axis of valve assembly 13 (i.e., the toilet fill valve). Ex. 1021, Fig. 1. Mr. Jobin testifies that a POSITA would not be motivated to move adapter tube 23 from a vertical position to a radial position because “a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar system.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 251; see Ex. 1021, 1:9–62. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Petitioner’s analysis and Dr. Cameron’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed modification to Brown. For example, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how such a modification would result in a more compact toilet fill valve system that could be adapted to fit in more toilet tank designs. Further, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Cameron sufficiently address Mr. Jobin’s testimony regarding Brown’s desire for a quieter toilet. See Pet. Reply 23; Ex. 1036 ¶ 84. Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is unpatentable over Brown and Ho.” slip op. at 35
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Patent Owner argues that the ’993 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 68; PO Sur-reply 28–30. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. Ex. 1012, 47, ¶ 8 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1001, 2:28–39. As can be seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288.” slip op. at 48
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“1. Analysis of Claims 1–18 Schuster is available as prior art if the ’993 patent is only entitled to its January 27, 2014, filing date and not entitled to claim priority to earlier filing dates of the parent applications. On its face, the ’993 patent claims priority to a number of earlier parent applications, including Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application) filed May 25, 2010, and the Application code 63. Petitioner contends that the ’993 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the earlier parent applications, and, thus, Schuster, a parent application of the ’993 patent, is available as prior art.15 Pet. 91–92. Petitioner alleges that the earlier parent applications, specifically Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application), do not provide written description support for the ’993 patent’s claim term “water flow regulator.” According to Petitioner, “water flow regulator” encompasses both adjustable devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., valves) and fixed devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., restrictors). Pet. 15. Petitioner contends that the ’904 Application does not provide support for water flow restrictors and, thus, does not provide support for the broader claim term water flow regulators. Id. at 14–15, 91–92. Petitioner argues that only adjustable water flow devices (i.e., valves) are supported by the ’904 Application. Id. Petitioner, thus, asserts that earliest effective filing date of the ’993 patent’s claims is the filing date of its application, January 27, 2014. Id. at 92. To be entitled to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120 each application in the priority chain must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Hollmer v. 14 The parties do not dispute that the ’993 patent and the earlier parent applications, including the ’904 Application and the ’606 Application, have the same pertinent portions of their specifications. See PO Resp. 71, n.16; Ex. 1004 ¶ 324. 15 Schuster issued on January 31, 2012, from Application No. 12/786,904, filed on May 25, 2010. Ex. 1029, code (21), (22), (45). Schuster, thus, issued more than one year prior to January 27, 2014.” slip op. at 46
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“2. Analysis of Claims 19 and 20 Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and additionally recites, “wherein the waterflow regulator comprises an adjustable water flow regulator that is configured to adjust the flow rate of the second portion of the water based at least in part on a setting of the adjustable water flow regulator.” Ex. 1001, 12:16–20. Claim 20 depends from claim 14 and recites the same additional limitation. Id. at 12:21–24. Claims 19 and 20, thus, require the water flow regulator to be an adjustable water flow regulator. Petitioner indicates that the earlier parent applications provide written description support for an adjustable water flow regulator. Pet. 91 (“[T]he ’904 application specification makes it clear that the adjustability of the bowl fill valve is a desirable and essential feature of the invention”); PO Surreply 28. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable over Schuster.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 9,139,993 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,139,993 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00714 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: Goldenberg anticipates or renders claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19 obvious, and Goldenberg with Cruz-Hernandez renders claims 7, 14, and 20 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’907 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–62. Because we discern no dispositive difference between the parties’ proposals, and neither party has argued that the choice between the two would affect the outcome,6 we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for this decision. We note, however, that our decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,627,907 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,627,907 - BTL Industries, Inc. v. Inmode Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00703 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–58 were not shown unpatentable: the Edwards, Ingle, and Mosher combination fails to establish key limitations, and Ollivier was not shown to be a prior art printed publication.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We apply Patent Owner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the field of the ’511 patent and the prior art and is consistent with testimony of Dr. Poulos and the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Berenholz. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself); Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–39; Ex. 2005, 55:5–17, 57:17–58:19. In our view, however, Petitioner’s proposed definition is not so different that our decision would change if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s argument are persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that a plain reading of the wherein clause requires the treating to begin at the introitus and extend at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. This construction is consistent with the ’511 patent’s Specification, which states: In typical embodiments, the length of the energy delivery element is about 1 to about 3 cm in length, in other embodiments it may be as long as about 4 cm. This is a length well adapted to treating the lower aspects of the vagina, wherein treatment by the method comprises contacting the vaginal epithelium in a region that extends from the introitus inward to a position about 3 to 4 cm inward from the introitus. In some embodiments of the invention, the method can b[e] practiced with a single row of parallel contract sites immediately inside the introitus. In other embodiments, the method may include deeper rows, or rows that overlap an initial row, while keeping the contact sites within the lower portion of the vagina. Ex. 1001, 3:28–40 (emphasis added); see also id. at 14:47–57. The ’511 patent Specification also states: “the portion of the vagina to be treated is a region between the introitus and a position located no further than about 3 to about 4 cm inward from the introitus.” Id. at 11:48–51 (emphasis added). Given the plain language of claim 1, consistent with the ’511 patent’s Specification, we construe “heating a portion of the vagina extending from the introitus inwardly to a location from 1 cm to 3.5 cm in from the introitus” to require heating a portion of the vagina beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments is persuasive. The cited portion of Mosher does not explicitly state the location of the treatment area. Ex. 1006 ¶ 74. In it Reply, Petitioner additionally points to paragraph 54 of Mosher, which states: “Preferably, the location of the treatment volume of endopelvic fascia will be disposed along a length of the urethra between the bladder neck and the external meatus so as to avoid injuring nerves.” Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 54). Petitioner argues that “[t]reating the vaginal wall adjacent to the mid-urethral region is within the claimed region of ‘from 1 cm to 3.5 cm in from the introitus.’” Pet. Reply 14–16. This, however, does not teach the claimed area beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. The Petition fails to show that either Edwards or Mosher discloses heating a portion of the vagina beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to treat the area beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–4, 16–17 (citing Pet. 35). The Petition’s argument is unpersuasive because it is conclusory and does not adequately address Edwards’s use of a speculum. Pet. 35. The Petition includes no” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“In its Reply, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to treat the area beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–4, 16–17 (citing Pet. 35). The Petition’s argument is unpersuasive because it is conclusory and does not adequately address Edwards’s use of a speculum. Pet. 35. The Petition includes no persuasive explanation as to why it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to use the treatment blade without the speculum. See Pet. 22–24, 35–36. We determine that Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable over Edwards, Ingle, and Mosher.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,961,511 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,961,511 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · PGR2025-00028 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds after finding claim 1 more likely than not unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Director may not authorize a post-grant review unless the information in the petition, if unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute a post-grant review as to claims 1–20 of the ’423 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art would have had “an educational background of, or practical experience equivalent to, a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems,” where “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’423 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’423 patent and cited 2 Petitioner states that it “takes no position on the proper priority date for the [c]hallenged [c]laims” and “uses the earliest possible priority date claimed, December 18, 2013,” for purposes of its asserted grounds. Pet. 14. prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–2:21 (stating that “[t]he present application relates to the field of payment processing systems” and describing the functionality of payment accepting units in the “Background” section).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Petitioner states that, “for purposes of [its] Petition, the Board need not construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes, and the claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner agrees that “[n]o constructions are necessary” to decide the issues disputed by the parties. Prelim. Resp. 2–3. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute a post-grant review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelNot reached
“For the reasons explained below, we conclude, on the merits and based on the current record, that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable as claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Pet. 77–84. Accordingly, we need not determine at this time whether collateral estoppel applies based on the Board’s decision in PGR2021-00093. The parties, however, should address the issue in their papers during trial, with citations to relevant authority. In particular, the parties are encouraged to address (1) how the collateral estoppel requirement that the issue be “identical to one decided in the first action” applies in the context of an asserted ground under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and (2) the parties’ apparent disagreement as to whether collateral estoppel may be applied in such circumstances on a “limitation-by-limitation basis.” See Pet. 72, 75 (quoting Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022)); Prelim. Resp. 20–21; see also Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., – F.4th –, No. 2023-1359, 2025 WL 2178321, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (Dyk, J., dissenting) (“In subsequent Board proceedings, it is well established that collateral estoppel applies to claims adjudicated by the Board to be unpatentable and also to ‘related claims that present identical issues of patentability,’ i.e., patentably indistinct claims. . . . ‘It is well established that patent claims need not be identical for collateral estoppel to apply.’” (citing MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Google, 54 F.4th at 1381)).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,972,423 - PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · PGR2025-00016 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 4–14 on all asserted grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute a post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 362–63, 369–70 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and “notes that it substantially tracks” Patent Owner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 19–20; see also id. at 20 n.7 (defining one of ordinary skill in the art as having “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical or Agricultural Engineering and two years of experience in the design of machines, or have had equivalent knowledge and experience”). Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. Patent Owner’s proposal is the same, except for use of the term “machines” instead of “vehicles.” Furthermore, Patent Owner does not argue at this stage of the proceeding that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would understand either the challenged patent or the prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“In contrast, we view the record at this stage as supporting an understanding of the “frame” in “mainframe” as a supporting structure. Patent Owner provides a dictionary defining “frame” as a “rigid supporting structure” (Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2009 at 3)), and Petitioner proposes “a supporting structure” based on that definition (see Pet. Reply CC Br. 3 (mistakenly citing Ex. 2007 rather than Ex. 2009)). Further, this dictionary definition does not contradict the “mainframe” described in the Specification or any other intrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Fig. 4, 2:44–45 (“FIG. 4 is a perspective view of a mainframe of a compact tool carrier.”); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322–23 (stating that judges may “rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents”).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Patent Owner’s argument does not identify a deficiency in the Petition, however, because we did not adopt any part of Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “mainframe,” including the phrase “the body,” which serves as the starting point of Patent Owner’s argument here. See § II.C.3. Instead, we preliminarily construe “mainframe” under its plain and ordinary meaning as a primary supporting structure. Id. Limitation 4.2 makes clear that the “mainframe” supports the “loader.” The current record supports that at least the structures shaded in green and blue in the annotated version of Figure 1 of KR996 immediately above are the primary supporting structure for the loader (i.e., a “mainframe”)—i.e., when in operation, those structures provide the primary “weight-bearing frame supporting the loader unit 40” in KR996. Pet. 24 (“KR996’s mainframe includes the frame components of KR996 vehicle for supporting the attached loader unit 40 by providing structural or weight-bearing support when the vehicle is in operation.” (citing Velinsky Decl. ¶¶ 65–67)); Pet. 26–27 (stating that the “mainframe” are the “portions [that] are part of a frame or body making up the KR996 vehicle when in operation providing structural and weight-bearing support for the loader unit 40, in addition to support for other features such as the control station and drive mechanism” (citing Velinsky Decl. ¶ 67)); see, e.g., Ex. 1005, Figs. 7–9 (showing the vehicle of KR996 in operation). The testimony of Dr. Velinsky supports these positions, explaining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the green and blue structures above as part of a “mainframe.” See Velinsky Decl. ¶¶ 66– 67, cited at Pet. 24–27. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented declaration testimony—but rather only attorney argument— supporting that one of ordinary skill in the art would have identified fixture 41 in KR996 as something other than a “mainframe.” See Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“‘[A]ttorney argument is not evidence’ and cannot rebut other admitted evidence.” (quoting Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017))). On the current record, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that KR996 discloses or suggests the mainframe limitations.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 12,098,063 - PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00381 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kubota would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 362–63, 369–70 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and “notes that it substantially tracks” Patent Owner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 19–20; see also id. at 20 n.7 (defining one of ordinary skill in the art as having “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical or Agricultural Engineering and two years of experience in the design of machines, or have had equivalent knowledge and experience”). Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. Patent Owner’s proposal is the same, except for use of the term “machines” instead of “vehicles.” Furthermore, Patent Owner does not argue at this stage of the proceeding that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would understand either the challenged patent or the prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“But that the Specification may indicate that a “loader support” and a “mainframe” may have some similar functionality does not make the terms interchangeable from a claim construction perspective. See Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Texas Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”) (citing CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”)). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s view that intrinsic and extrinsic evidence regarding a different term—“mainframe”—supports a similar proposed construction for “loader support.” See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 22–27 (discussing intrinsic and extrinsic evidence relating to “mainframe” and then proposing a definition of “loader support”). Instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “loader support,” which aligns with the view of the Iowa District Court. See Ex. 1020 at 5 (the Iowa District Court stating that “loader support” “will be given [its] plain and ordinary meaning”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action . . . that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). We need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. 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 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the claim, and for the reasons below, we determine that the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is both anticipated and would have been obvious based on KR996.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,465,891 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00171 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 and 19–28 on all asserted grounds because the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant prior art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“On March 19, 2025, however, the Texas District Court stayed the Texas Litigation pending the resolution of this inter partes review and the related inter partes reviews. See Ex. 1037 at 6; Prelim. Reply 1. “A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Factor 1 strongly weighs against discretionarily denying the Petition.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In determining whether to deny institution under § 325(d) we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). If part one of Advanced Bionics is unsatisfied, discretionary denial is unwarranted, and we need not proceed to part two of Advanced Bionics. Id.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 362–63, 369–70 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,202,266
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.