- Walt Disney Parks And Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Agile Journeys LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00029 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable; the challenges to claims 11, 22, and 23 were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various non- exhaustive factors may be considered, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA,” “PHOSITA,” or “skilled artisan”) “would have the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in computer science, engineering, operations research, or similar discipline, along with one year of experience in computer programming” and that “[t]he more education one has, the less experience needed to attain an ordinary level of skill[, and] . . ., more experience in the field may serve as a substitute for formal education.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not remark on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA nor does it provide a definition. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we find that the ’983 patent and the” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“3. Conclusion of Ground 1 Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find,” slip op. at 70
- BurdenMixed
“Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’983 patent. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Challenged Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8–10, 12–14, 16–19, 20, 21, 24, and 25, but has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Challenged Claims 11, 22, and 23 unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
Patent outcomesUS 7,212,983 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,212,983 - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious: claim 1 over Cho, Aaron, and Carpenter; claim 2 over those references and de Geer; claim 3 over Cho and Aaron; and claim 4 over Cho, Aaron, and de …
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“application are similar, as indicated by the redline comparison of two provided as Exhibit 1015. Critically, however, the “Summary of the Invention” sections are completely different. Id. at 2–4. The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood with reasonable clarity, without the benefit of the Summary added for the ’286 patent/’674 application, that the ՚030 application describes a smart telephone that executes coded instructions to “convert the analog variable voltage audio signal received at the microphone port to the transaction data as digital data.”” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Here, although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. The evidence indicates that the claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data B1-Bn” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As discussed above in Section II.C, we construe the term “transaction data” as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. Again, we emphasize that claim 1 requires that the transaction data is accepted by the card reader from an output interface of the transaction card. Cho provides that card reader 230 reads a digital signal that includes account information of card 130 whereby the account information “may include at least one of an account number, a card expiration data, etc.” Ex. 1005, 5:54–58. We further agree with Petitioner that to the extent “transaction data” is for the purpose of conducting banking transactions, Cho’s account data of a credit card number and expiration date can perform that purpose. Patent Owner’s arguments that the transaction data cannot be “static” and that claim 1 requires “processing actual transaction-specific data” are not commensurate with the scope of the claim 1. The claim does not recite any limitations that the transaction data be dynamic or “not static,” nor does it recite any processing of the transaction data outside of using it to “facilitate transactions.” Petitioner has shown that Cho teaches the claimed transaction data.” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,286 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - PTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01296 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–46 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“On balance, we determine that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial of institution. In particular, we determine that factors 1 and 5 are neutral, factors 2 and 3 weigh against denial, and factor 4 is of institution, does not outweigh factors 1–3 and 5. As a result, we need not and, therefore, do not decide whether Petitioner presents a compelling unpatentability challenge. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (decision on Director review) (precedential) (“[I]n circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis.”). 7. Fintiv Determination The balance of all Fintiv factors do not favor the exercise of our discretionary powers to deny institution. Therefore, we determine that discretionary denial is not appropriate in this case.” slip op. at 20
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“B. 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) – PARALLEL PETITION The Petition seeks inter partes review of the same claims of the ’380 patent that Petitioner previously requested review of in IPR2024-00953. Pet. 1. Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be discretionarily denied under § 314(a) for failure to show good cause for a second petition. Prelim. Resp. 67–73. The Board denied institution in IPR2024-00953, exercising discretion under § 314(a) based on the existence of the petition in this proceeding. IPR2024-00953, Paper 18. We thus decline to deny institution based on a parallel petition.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“However, we find that Fang is not cumulative of the art considered by the Examiner in prosecution. Further, Patent Owner does not direct attention to, and we do not see, how or where the Examiner considered Khalil for teaching removing the air line for directly connecting the external pump to connecting a pump housing to a diaphragm housing” (POPR 50), the Examiner specifically found that Khalil did not teach the diaphragm housing being fixed to a recessed surface of the pump housing (Ex. 1002, 24), for which Petitioner relies on Fang (Pet. 37). And we note that Petitioner relies on Fang for the element the Examiner found was not taught by the prior art, including Khalil. Ex. 1002, 24; Pet. 37. Accordingly, we determine that discretionary denial is not warranted because the asserted combinations, all of which include Fang, were not previously presented to the Office. Because we determine that part one of the framework is not satisfied, we need not, and therefore do not, turn to part two of the analysis, which concerns whether Petitioner demonstrates that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. 5. Conclusion Regarding Discretionary Denial under § 325(d) The Advanced Bionics framework “reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 9. Under the present circumstances, we determine that the same or substantially the same prior art combinations or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, inter partes review of the ’380 patent shall proceed in this case on all of the grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60; PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 65
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,413,380 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00842 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–29 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and granted EndyMed’s motion to join the ’386 IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the foregoing reasons, the underlying premise of Serendia’s arguments here and in the ’386 IPR remains substantially the same. Thus, for the same reasons discussed in our decision instituting the ’386 IPR, we find that EndyMed demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of challenged claims 1–29 of the ’836 patent. See ’386 IPR, Paper 18. That is not to say, however, that Serendia may not ultimately persuade us at trial of the deficiency of EndyMed’s showing based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“evidences nonobviousness for four different patents. In this situation, a presumption of nexus is appropriate only if patent owner demonstrates that the claims of all four patents “generally cover the same invention.” See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377 (“Where a product embodies claims from two patents, a presumption of nexus can be appropriate only if the claims of both patents generally cover the same invention.”). “The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.” Id. at 1378 (citation omitted). “In such situations, the patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, Serendia does not demonstrate that the four different patents cover the same invention. See Prelim. Resp. 59–74. Indeed, Serendia does not address U.S. Patents 9,775,774, 9,320,536, and 10,869,812 at all. See id. That Serendia separately sought patent protection for each of these four patents suggests that these patents do not generally cover the same invention. Cf Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378 (“The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.”). We made a similar determination in the ’386 IPR. See, e.g., ’386 IPR, Paper 18 at 38 (“Patent Owner fails to set forth which patents ‘generally cover’ the Sylfirm X device.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“We disagree with Serendia. EndyMed need not justify its delay where, as here, EndyMed satisfies the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely. Serendia also argues that joinder should be denied due to duplicative efforts with the parallel Delaware litigation, which involves the same parties and patent as here. See PO Opp. 3–4. That argument fails for the simple reason that EndyMed submits a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the Delaware litigation the same grounds that are asserted in the petition here or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised here. See Pet. Reply 1–2. A Sotera stipulation mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts, and we decline to discretionarily decline institution where a petitioner makes such a stipulation. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7–8. Thus, we will not discretionarily deny the petition or motion for joinder on the basis of the parallel Delaware litigation.8” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,480,836 - Foursquare Labs, Inc. v. Boardactive CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00918 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1–27 under the Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr obviousness ground, and claims 28–29 under the Adharapurapu (Alcatel) anticipation ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Our Institution Decision addressed the matter of the appropriate level of ordinary skill, in view of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, as follows: The parties’ descriptions of the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention do not appear to differ in any material way that would affect this Decision. However, at this stage of the proceeding, it is unclear whether it would be proper to require Patent Owner’s proposed requirement of “three years of experience working with digital advertising and geofencing.” Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Accordingly, for the purposes of this [Institution] Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the relevant level of skill in the art, because it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’620 patent and asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 16. Patent Owner’s Response endorses the determination presented in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 2. Petitioner does not address our initial determination in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Accordingly, consistent with our Institution Decision, in this Final Written Decision, we employ Petitioner’s description of the relevant level of skill in the art. C. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The Specification of the ’620 patent supports the understanding that a “consumer” is “a user or person,” per Patent Owner’s proposal (PO Resp. 11). See Ex. 1001, 8:36–38 (“The AdDrop™ may require the consumer to be one of the first few people to input an answer to a question to win the promotion.”) However, Patent Owner’s further proposed requirement — i.e., that a “consumer” be someone “to whom an advertisement may be sent” — would cloud, rather than clarify, the term’s meaning. PO Resp. 11 (emphasis added). For instance, under Patent Owner’s construction, it is not clear if “consumers” require access to the cellular network or Internet in order to be sent advertisements. Further, Patent Owner’s proposed construction would not assist in resolving any issue in this proceeding, contrary to our ambition to construe claim terms “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. Moreover, the role of the term “consumer,” in the ’620 patent’s claims, is based upon the relationship of the “consumer” to particular actions and instrumentalities, e.g., associated “media content,” “profile data,” or a “device.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 37:57, 66–67, 38:15. In view of the foregoing, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that requires a “consumer” to be a person “to whom an advertisement may be sent.” See PO Resp. 11 (emphasis added). D. Prior Art References” slip op. at 15
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, such a new argument that is introduced in a Sur- reply is improper. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide10 74 (Nov. 2019) (“While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. The Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply or surreply.”); Hulu, LLC v. SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC, IPR2021-00158, Paper 34 at 55 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2022). In addition, Patent Owner’s new “geolocation” argument is founded on attorney argument, without adequate support in record evidence, and is contradicted by the unchallenged testimony of Dr. Goldberg. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 29–66 (discussing terrestrial location technologies), 175–195 (discussing the disclosure of “geolocation” features in the Adharapurapu (Alcatel) reference).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Yet, Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s stated reasons (quoted above) for combining teachings of Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr, regarding the “registering asset data” features of limitation 1(a) (including its subparts) — reasons that are supported by the unchallenged testimony of Dr. Goldberg. See Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 196–197). Still further, Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s other reasons for combining teachings of Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr, concerning the recited “content interaction layer” and “consumer tracking layer” features of limitation 1(b) (including its subparts): , POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate Kerr’s user content interaction features into Alcatel to provide user subjective information/feedback for improving the accuracy, reducing noise, and enhancing efficiency in tailored communications. Pet. 43–44. Petitioner’s discussion of these reasons for combining the references’ teachings is supported by additional unrebutted testimony of Dr. Goldberg. Ex. 1002 ¶ 180. Having considered the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record (including the unchallenged testimony of Dr. Goldberg), we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr teach or suggest limitation 1(a) (including all subparts).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,621,620 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,621,620 - Foursquare Labs, Inc. v. Boardactive CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00919 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable: claims 13–19 were anticipated by Felt, and claims 1–23 would have been obvious over Adharapurapu and Felt.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude in its entirety. IV. PATENT OWNER’s MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1002 and 1009—the” slip op. at 84
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Accordingly, the Petition fails to establish that Felt satisfies” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Goldberg, and the reasoning to combine the references, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–23 would have been obvious over the combination of Adharapurapu and Felt (Ground 6). Petitioner has also shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Felt anticipates claims 13–19 (Ground 1), renders obvious claims 13–19 (Ground 2), and that claims 1–19 would have been obvious over Felt in view of Creemer or Scofield (Ground 4).” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 10,692,108 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,692,108 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00849 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 18, 20, 26, and 27 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedOther
“1. “safety device” For the ’745 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelOther
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various non-” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“5. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness a) Legal Standards Objective evidence of non-obviousness “may often be the most 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, 699 F.3d at 1349. Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, objective evidence of nonobviousness (or “secondary considerations”) 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). Thus, our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 72
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“cited by Petitioner, we find that on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 18 and 20 based on Socwell, Magid, and Sclater.” slip op. at 82
Patent outcomesUS 10,799,745 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,799,745 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00843 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30–34, 37–39, 41, 45–49, 57, and 59 are unpatentable under § 103 over Chickering, Magid, and Sclater; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’884 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 13
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Dr. Blair to be unpersuasive, because we do not agree that the claimed running surface is required to be a surface with which a runner’s feet are intended to make contact when using a treadmill. Dr. Blair testifies that “[a] POSA would understand a treadmill’s ‘running surface’ to be a surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use” and that, because a runner’s feet is not intended to contact the belt at the area where the forward rollers meet the rearward rollers, that area is not part of the running surface. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–92. Dr. Blair’s testimony, however, contains no sufficient explanation to support his conclusion of what a POSA would understand by the term “running surface.” See id. ¶ 90. Further, Dr. Blair’s testimony is inconsistent with the language of claim 30. Claim 30 recites: “the running belt comprises a curved running surface.” Ex. 1001, 35:58–59. The language of claim 30 does not require the running belt’s running surface to only be portions that the runner typically or is intended to run upon. Dr. Blair’s testimony is also inconsistent with the ’884 patent which does not describe the running surface as being limited to the surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use. See generally id. The ’884 patent describes numerous examples of continuous running surfaces with a wide variety of” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 10,561,884 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,561,884 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00836 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14, and 18 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 15 and 25 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’580 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’580 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as a means-plus-function claim limitation with corresponding structure being “a operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever.” Ex. 1033, 17–22. Both parties agree that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” to encompass “a one-way bearing assembly, a cam locking system, a taper lock, a user operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever” and equivalents.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Both parties agree that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” to encompass “a one-way bearing assembly, a cam locking system, a taper lock, a user operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever” and equivalents.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that either of Chickering or Magid teaches away from the combination proposed in the Petition — modifying Chickering’s single-belt embodiment to include Magid’s unidirectional control mean 6, 6’ (Pet. 41). Patent Owner points to differences between Chickering and Magid, but we are not persuaded that those differences – number of belts, use as a therapeutic device as opposed to a recreational exercise device, use of handles – would discourage a POSA from making the proposed combination. Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 57–59. slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,039,580 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,039,580 - Orthocision, Inc. v. PTL Opco LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted § 103 ground because Petitioner did not adequately explain how or why the prior art would be combined.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Bovinet, uses a slightly different, but not materially so, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan than Petitioner. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 13. Thus, the parties appear to agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience. We accept and adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’129 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“3. Summary on Claim Construction We maintain our earlier constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . .” See DI 16–24. We determine that no other express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. Although we maintain here our constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . ,” we do so only for the sake of completeness. These claim constructions, ultimately, are not determinative of the outcome of this proceeding because, regardless of the meaning of any claim term, including these disputed terms, we find that Petitioner fails to adequately explain why any claim would have been obvious under the asserted grounds. We explain this in detail below. C.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 6:28–38 (emphasis added). However, the language of claim 1 is very clear on the functionality of the “open tip,” expressly reciting that “the open tip cuts bone tissue away from the sacrum or the ilium.” Id. at 13:19– 20. Thus, the claim language itself provides the required functionality of the “open tip,” and we do not agree with Petitioner that additional functionality relating to where bone tissue might go once cut, as discussed in the Specification, should be read into the claims as a limitation. Patent Owner’s newly proposed interpretation is similar to Petitioner’s in that it requests addition of functionality discussed as an example in the Specification, but not recited in the claim’s expressly recited functional language relating to the “open tip.” We disagree with Patent Owner that the concept of dislodged tissue entering a void defined by the open tip is necessary to understanding the claim element. And, once more, Patent Owner reads too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that the recited “open tip” language requires that we further clarify that any interior void defined by the open tip is on the interior of the abrading head, and behind the exterior abrading surfaces, or between interior surfaces of a first pair of opposing sides, as proposed by Patent Owner. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification . . . , it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. . . . [T]he claims define the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581–82 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112 ¶ 6) if, as here, it explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional language; this presumption is overcome if the limitation further includes the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Here, the word “means” is recited, followed by functional language, and the claim recites no structure associated with the means or function. Moreover, the parties agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Resp. 9. We find “releasing means” is a means plus function limitation and, based on the plain language of the claim, the recited “releasing means” is a part of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17. Construing a claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) involves two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function; and then (2) determining what structure, if any, disclosed in the Specification corresponds to the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. In conducting this analysis, we may not incorporate structure from the written description beyond that which is necessary to perform the claimed function. See Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,020,129 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,020,129
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.