• Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00152 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–17 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 6, and 11 are obvious over Sutardja, Donnelly, and Letendre.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Donnelly’s GUI into Sutardja’s display to more easily and conveniently communicate Sutardja’s state of charge information to a user in a graphical format. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 242; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine Donnelly’s GUI depicting a bar graph indicating the charged and uncharged capacity of a vehicle battery into Sutardja according to well-known methods that would have yielded predictable results. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 160). Petitioner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to successfully combine Donnelly’s GUI as it relates to the state of charge into Sutardja’s vehicle, which already processed information about the state of charge of its battery and included a display showing charging parameters. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 242, 243, Ex. 1003 ¶ 161).” slip op. at 14

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

    “includes “at least” a bar graph as shown in Figure 7. Id. at 4. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s “proposed construction should be rejected” because it “would wrongly import embodiments from the specification.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21. Patent Owner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that the “unitary charge indicator is not limited to a bar graph representation.” Id. at 21. We discern no dispute over the meaning of “unitary vehicle charge indicator” because Petitioner does not argue that the term is “limited” to the embodiment shown in Figure 7, only that the term “at least includes” that embodiment. Patent Owner does not contend otherwise.” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that Petitioner violates Rule 42.6(a)(3) by impermissibly incorporating arguments from Mr. Andrews’s Declaration into the Petition to avoid the word count limit. Prelim. Resp. 46–49. Patent Owner contends that the Andrews declaration is “over 140 pages” with a substantive portion containing “multiples of the allotted 14000 words” to a petition. Id. at 47. Patent Owner contends that “the only way to potentially understand the Petitioner’s proposed unpatentability challenges is to wade through the extraneous pages cited within the Andrews Declaration.” Id. Patent Owner also complains that Andrews supports his testimony relating to Petitioner’s first challenge by citing “many additional references in addition to references actually ‘relied upon’ by Petitioner.” Id. at 47–48. We discern no violation of Rule 42.6(a)(3). To the contrary, that Mr. Andrews’s supports his extensive explanations of his opinions with citations to dozens of pieces of objective evidence, is a feature, not a bug of his testimony. Mr. Andrews, and Petitioner by extension, leave virtually none of the substance of his testimony unsupported by objective evidence, a practice that we applaud.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,990,788
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00155 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, or 19 were unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018).1 For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, and 19 of the ’187 patent is unpatentable based on the grounds set forth in the Petition, and we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Petitioner asserts that more work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner admittedly sets forth “a similar, though slightly different, level of ordinary skill”: a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa. Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex.2001 ¶¶ 60–64). Patent Owner discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes of the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding. Id. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill as being consistent with the prior art, although our conclusion on whether to institute would be unchanged under either definition.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “The failure to use the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). The presumption can be overcome and § 112 ¶ 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to “recite[ ] sufficiently definite structure” or else recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. “Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process.” Id. at 1351. “The [tribunal] must first identify the claimed function.” Id. “Then, the [tribunal] must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.” Id. There may be multiple claimed functions, each with disclosed corresponding structure. See id. at 1351–52.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner that the term “automatically” in “to automatically disengage the first and second catch structures” means that it is not just the force applied by the user that disengages the first and second catch structures, but also the bias of the mouthpiece that helps to disengage the first and second catch structures. In the first instance, we agree with Patent Owner that the claim itself recites that, upon actuation, the mouthpiece assembly is “release[d]” to “move via its bias from the stowed configuration to the dispensing configuration.” See Ex. 1001, 21:59–64. This meaning is supported by the Specification which states: “In some examples, the mouthpiece assembly is biased toward the dispensing configuration and thus moves automatically under its bias upon release by the user-release mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 1:64–67. We further agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “automatic” is that the user operation alone is not responsible for the action. For example, in one dictionary cited by Petitioner, “automatic” is defined as “2: having a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism.” See Ex. 2007, 1.11 The district court construction is consistent therewith. The district court identified two functions, the first of which is the same as that of the ’028 patent, i.e., “Automatically disengaging the first and second catch structures upon actuation of the user release mechanism and thereby releasing the mouthpiece assembly to move via its bias from the stowed configuration to the dispensing configuration.” See Section II.C.1, supra. In discussing that function, the district court states: “While a user may impart force upon user engagement portion 260 to release the mouthpiece, the bias of the mouthpiece towards the dispensing configuration causes the mouthpiece to move automatically, satisfying the requirements of Claim 1.” Ex. 2002, 16. We conclude that the term “automatically” in “adapted to” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,684,187
• Bowmar Archery LLC v. Matthew FuttereNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00401 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 17 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties do not identify, and we do not discern, any material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. For purposes of this decision and based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. Also, we note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 9

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

    “1. Ferrule Petitioner argues that the ’177 patent “defines ‘ferrule’ as a ‘generally cylindrical body,’” which interpretation Petitioner asserts “is consistent with the ordinary meaning to [an ordinarily skilled artisan].” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:53–55; Ex. 1019 ¶ 61). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of this claim term. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested interpretation of “ferrule.” 2. Blade Member Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would” slip op. at 10

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

    “As discussed in section II.C.2 above, we interpret a “blade member” to have a cutting surface. Petitioner does not support adequately its assertion that Lint’s barbs 19 have a cutting surface. Petitioner acknowledges that Lint discloses “barb 19,” but Petitioner merely labels the barbs as blade members in annotated versions of Lint Figure 2. Pet. 21–22, 24. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Kuhn, provides substantially identical testimony, also failing to explain how Lint’s barbs have a cutting surface or perform a cutting function. See Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 68, 70. Such conclusory assertions fail to satisfy Petitioner’s burden of persuasion. To the contrary of Petitioner’s assertions, Lint discloses that its barbs do not perform a cutting function. Lint discloses that its barbs retract to the closed position upon impact with an animal. Ex. 1002, 2:62–67. Only when the arrowhead has “completely penetrated the flesh of an animal” does the spring urge the barbs into the extended position “to retain the arrowhead within the animal.” Id. at 2:67–70.6 Lint discloses that its barbs provide 6 During the hearing, Petitioner’s counsel argued that Lint’s disclosure of its barbs deploying “[a]fter the arrowhead 10 has completely penetrated the flesh of an animal” means the spring urges the barbs forward after the resistance to the removal of the arrow from an animal (id. at 1:53–57, 2:67–70), but Lint does not disclose its barbs as performing any cutting function. Thus, Lint’s barbs are not blade members with a cutting surface as we have interpreted the term above. Petitioner has failed to explain adequately how Lint discloses first and second blade members as recited in independent claims 1 and 11.” slip op. at 21

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

    “A claimed modification to the prior art may be an obvious design choice if the claimed structure performs the same function as in the prior art and it presents no novel or unexpected result over the prior art. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (finding that the use of the claimed feature “would be an obvious matter of design choice” when it “solves no stated problem” and “presents no novel or unexpected result” over the disclosed alternatives); Ex parte Maeda, Appeal No. 2010-009814, at 6–7 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2012) (informative) (“‘design choice’ may be appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results” (citing In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298–99 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). The ’177 patent explains that the purpose of the recited blade members is to maximize the cutting surface of the arrowhead through an animal’s soft flesh to increase the likelihood of a successful kill and minimize undue suffering of the animal. Ex. 1001, 1:26–30, 4:8–10, 4:21–24. The purpose of Lint’s barbs, on the other hand, is to resist removal of the arrow from an animal. Ex. 1002, 2:67–70. Indeed, Lint discloses that only when the arrowhead has “completely penetrated the flesh of an animal” does the spring urge the barbs into the extended position. Id. Thus, contrary to the conclusory assertions of Petitioner and Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Kuhn (see Pet. 49–51; Ex. 1019 ¶ 119), the recited blade members and Lint’s barbs perform vastly different functions. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Kuhn explains adequately how the proposed modification to Lint’s barbs would be a mere matter of design choice. For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s first alternative” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,043,177 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,043,177
• Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00300 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–38 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish Krupa as prior art and failed to show the claimed fluid-triggered valve sequence in Carr or Tolman.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Although we agree with Petitioner that the plain meaning of limitation 1.2 does not require the recited determination to occur at the first well, it does require the determination to be about the condition(s) of the fluid communicated to the first well by the manifold, regardless of where or how the information is gathered to make that determination. Limitation 1.2 recites plainly that the “determining” step is specifically about whether “the fluid communicated via the manifold has satisfied one or more conditions.” Ex. 1001, 22:38–39 (emphasis added). Considering the antecedents for “the fluid” and “the manifold”––i.e., “communicating fluid to a first well via a manifold” (id. at 22:35, limitation 1.1)––limitation 1.2 expressly identifies the fluid which “the manifold” has “communicated” to the first well to be exactly the fluid used for “determining” whether “one or more conditions” are “satisfied” to trigger the recited responses. Id. This is because “the fluid” refers to a fluid passing to a first well by way of a manifold and the past tense of “communicated via the manifold” indicates, more specifically, that it is the fluid passed by the manifold which must satisfy a condition(s). The Specification of ’770 patent illustrates this by checking the “frac rate” of the fluid discharged by a manifold to a first well to make the determination about whether to permit a regular swap or a continuous pumping swap (“CP swap”). Ex. 1001, 13:30–54, Fig. 12. Therefore, contrary to Petitioner’s representation that limitation 1.2 does not “requir[e] the fluid used for ‘determining’ to have been communicated to the first well” (Pet. Reply 3), the plain meaning of limitation 1.2 does require the fluid used” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, Krupa necessarily requires Krupa to be first qualified as prior art. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (party’s burden to prove anticipation of a patent includes initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art). Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)— the subsection under which Petitioner contends Krupa qualifies as prior art—when the reference patent document’s actual filing date is before the challenged patent’s filing date, a petitioner need only refer to the filing dates appearing on the challenged patent and reference patent document to make prima facie showing that the reference is prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(1) (“For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent.”).” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the Petition did not adequately present Petitioner’s contention that Tolman discloses or suggests a “master valve” that a skilled artisan would understand to be the claimed “first valve,” which is first introduced in the Reply. The issue is whether Petitioner’s identification of Tolman’s “tree valve” for the claimed first valve was particular enough to allow Petitioner to rely specifically on the “master valve” in the well tree to show Tolman discloses the first valve. We find that it is not. It is undisputed that a well tree include several different valves: (1) valves for communicating fluid to a well (e.g., for treatment or stimulation); (2) valves for communicating fluid from a well (e.g., for flowback); and (3) valves for communicating fluid both to and from a well (e.g., master valve). See Reply 19–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 542–545; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 33–34, 38–42; Tr. 33:12–18, 34:3–12, 36:8–37:18, 39:4–17; Ex. 2013, 85:4–86:19, 87:1–12, 89:2–11. And the opening/closing of these different valves are controlled independently of the other valves based on different parameters. Id. identifying a tree valve, generally, does not provide the particularity necessary to provide notice that the master valve is the particular valve being relied upon. Further compounding this problem is the fact that the Petition repeatedly refers to a plurality of valves, rather than a singular “master valve.” The variability of possible valves suggested by simply referring to a tree valve fails to provide a level of particularity that clearly identifies which specific structure is being relied upon to perform which part of the recited procedure. Ultimately, we agree with Patent Owner that because the Petition does not specifically identify the master valve in the Petition, which the Petitioner’s Reply suggest was the intention all along, Patent Owner was put at a disadvantage because its ability to fully develop a response was impeded. Therefore, Petitioner’s reliance particularly on the “master valve” of the well tree, and the newly introduced evidence associated therewith, was improper and may not be considered. Nevertheless, as discussed below, even if Petitioner were allowed to rely on the master valve, we still find the Tolman Grounds to be deficient.” slip op. at 56

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “However, Carr does not disclose or suggest: relying on the condition(s) of the fluid communicated by first isolated manifold path 122 to first well 140 to be the determinative factor for causing first and second valves 470 and 472 to perform a sequenced response that includes–– (1) opening second valve 472, (2) communicating fluid to second well 142 through second valve 472, and (3) after opening second valve 472, closing first valve 150 from communicating fluid to first well 140. At the time of the invention, when a first well is being operated individually using high pressure pumping, we find that skilled artisans would have considered concurrent operation of the second well’s valves to be hazardous and activities that can not occur. See Ex. 1031, 4 (“specifically identified activities that were restricted from occurring at the same time (i.e., CAN NOT OCCUR activities). As an example, if the operations on a well involved high pressure pumping . . . then manipulating manifold well valves and wellhead trees valves on another well were not allowed to be performed concurrently”); Ex. 2012 ¶ 148. would have had a reasonable expectation of being able to successfully avoid the unacceptable hazards known to be associated with opening second valve 472 and communicating fluid to second well 142, while individually operating on first well 140 using high pressure pumping.10 Furthermore, Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that a skilled artisan would have known that those unacceptable hazards could be avoided (or acceptably minimized) by using a condition(s) of the fluid communicated by first isolated manifold path 122 to first well 140 as a trigger for opening second valve 472 and communicating fluid to second well 142, while first well 140 is being individually operated.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,560,770 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,560,770
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00140 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all petitioned challenges, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is obvious over Nakajima and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of claims 1–18 of the ’250 patent is unpatentable, and we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–18 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 25). Petitioner asserts that more work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner admittedly sets forth “a similar, though slightly different, level of ordinary skill”: a bachelor’s degree in mechanical experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa. Prelim. Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 50). Patent Owner discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes of the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding. Id. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill as being consistent with the prior art, although our conclusion on whether to institute would be unchanged under either 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

    “For purposes of this decision on institution, we adopt the proffered dictionary definition of “mouthpiece” as “a part (as of an instrument) that goes in the mouth or to which the mouth is applied” (see Ex. 2005), and we construe this as an intended use of this component of the apparatus, because this definition is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term which is a compound of “mouth” and “piece” and also because this definition is consistent with the Specification. For example, the Specification describes the use of the mouthpiece as follows: “In use, the mouthpiece is adapted to be configured to the dispensing configuration by a user placing the mouthpiece in the user’s mouth and biting upon or otherwise compressing the appropriate portions of sidewalls 92 of the mouthpiece.” Ex. 1001, 8:45–49. We note that, although the Specification refers to bite-actuation of the mouthpiece, for example in the field of the disclosure and certain embodiments (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:25–27), the independent claims do not require bite-actuation. The Specification identifies the mouthpiece as item 72 (which is depicted, for example, in Figure 25, reproduced supra). Ex. 1001, 3:7‒8. 7 Exhibit 2005 appears to be from an online Merriam-Webster dictionary accessed March 13, 2025. Ex. 2005, 4. At this time, there is no argument in the preliminary record that this definition would have been different before the critical date of the patent.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the construction of this limitation may be helpful in deciding the issues of unpatentability, we determine that the construction of this term would benefit from further briefing during the trial phase of this proceeding, and we invite the parties to continue to brief this issue. Therefore, we do not provide a preliminary construction of the term at this time.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,851,250
• Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber Food Technology GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00235 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, 10, and 14–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Young and obvious over Young and Norrie; the Johnson and Belk ground was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Provisur proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field); or (2) at least seven years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field). Pet. 12. Weber does not contest Provisur’s framing of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. There being no dispute, we adopt Provisur’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Provisur construes the claim terms “according to their plain and ordinary meanings as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] in view of the specification and prosecution history” and posits that “[n]o terms require an explicit construction to resolve the unpatentability controversy between the parties here.” Pet. 13. Weber appears to agree, stating in the related district court action that “most of [its] patent claims are plain and ordinary . . . [t]hey’re not difficult or complex claims or claim terms.” Ex. 3 US 5,514,032, issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1004, “Young”). 4 US 4,979,269, issued Dec. 25, 1990 (Ex. 1005, “Norrie”). 5 US 6,929,540 B2, issued Aug. 16, 2005 (Ex. 1006, “Johnson”). 6 US 6,198,834 B1, issued Mar. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1007, “Belk”). 1028, 5. This being the case, we do not find the need to expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (confirming that the Board need not construe claim terms where their construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 5

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

    “without first determining how much fat existed to begin with, i.e., prior to the side of meat being trimmed. But, as Provisur correctly notes, Weber ignores what one skilled in the art reasonably would have understood from reading Young’s disclosure as a whole. See Pet. 30–36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–106, 109–112); Pet. Reply 2–12. When that is done, one skilled in the art would have understood that a necessary premise of Young’s determination of the thickness of fat to remain on the loin is knowing the thickness of the fat to begin with, which Young’s imaging system 190 and imaging processing routine 240 determine by first analyzing a series of “fat/lean separation lines” and “edge lines” in the side of meat being trimmed. Pet. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1004, 17:34–62, 18:33–56, 22:53–24:38, Figs. 2, 13); Pet. Reply 3–7 (citing portions of same evidence). More specifically, as described in Young (and articulated by Provisur), the side of meat is placed fat side down on a product support, i.e., platen 20. See Ex. 1004, 7:16–21, Figs. 1, 2. Using several cameras—top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, and fat line camera 198—Young’s imaging system 190 acquires multiple images of the side of meat from various angles and under various lighting conditions to “provide image data regarding each side of [meat].” See id. at 17:34–18:56. That image data is then used by Young’s image processing routine 240 to generate a series of demarcation lines on the side of meat, including: (1) fat/lean separation lines (representing the interface between the loin meat and the fat layer along top, side, and end views of the meat product; and (2) edge lines (representing lines along the outer surface of the meat product). See id. at 22:53–23:67, Figs. 10, 13 (Blocks 242, 246, 250, 254). In addition, “a plurality of points (preferably 20) are generated for each of the fat/lean separation and edge lines using known pattern matching routines.” Id. at 23:28–30, Fig. 13 (Blocks 244, 248, 252, 256); see also id. at 23:61–63 (essentially same). The fat/lean separation and edge lines (and points therein) generated by Young’s image processing routine 240 are then used to calculate certain dimensions and characteristics of the side of meat, such as height, length, and width. Id. at 24:10–22, Fig. 13 (Block 258). As Provisur’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would have understood that the dimension from the fat/lean separation line to the edge line along the outer surface represents the thickness of fat cover on the side of meat, i.e., before the fat is trimmed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 106. Insofar as how that dimension is used, Young states that controller 172 uses “dynamic (real time) image data” of the fat/lean separation and edge lines “to dynamically modify the cutting profile of the loin knife assembly 100 so that the assembly follows a fixed distance from the separation line to provide the optimum fat cover for the loin.” Ex. 1004, 18:32–45; see also id. at 17:48–52 (describing “real time processor” for “image processing routines”). Notably, according to Young, the “fixed distance” represents the “desired” thickness of fat that remains on the loin, after trimming, and “sufficiently keeps the loin from drying out, but doesn’t make the loin look too fat,” although “[o]ther fat thicknesses may be desired in the alternative.” Id. at 20:60–66; see also id. at 10:39–42 (“Through control of the knife blade along several axes, assembly 100 preferably produces an optimum separation between loin and belly, with a desired fat covering left on the loin.” (emphases added)). Because the desired thickness of fat cover is what remains on the loin” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for patent owner

    “argument that Weber considers vital to its dispute of Provisur’s showing for the claimed fat thickness determination. During oral hearing, Weber repeatedly argued that Provisur changed theories midstream, i.e., between the time of the petition and the hearing. See Hrg. Tr. 22:18–24:47; see also id. at 31:14–22, 33:8–18, 34:16–20, 49:17–50:15, 54:16–56:25 (repeating same argument). More specifically, according to Weber, Provisur originally relied only on image data from Young’s “top view” camera as processed in “block 246” of Young’s image processing routine 240 when showing how Young meets the claimed fat thickness determination, whereas now Provisur relies on image data from Young’s “end view” cameras as processed in “Block 254.” Compare PO Sur-Reply 3–6 (focusing on Young’s “top view camera” in “block 246”), with Hrg. Tr. 27:4–16 (“[Block] 246, which is what they relied on, is processing images from the top-view camera in Young’s system. It is generating lines from the top-view camera in Young’s system. What they are newly trying to rely on today, for the first time, is Block 254 that is discussed toward the bottom of column 23 in Young, and that analyzes different images from a different camera. It is the end camera. It generates different lines. It demonstrates an end fat/lean line and an end edge line. Prior to today’s hearing, neither Petitioner, nor its expert, had ever discussed Block 254. You will not find a single reference to 254 in their papers, nor have they discussed the end edge line. It is completely new today. It finds absolutely no support in the record.” (emphases added)). We disagree with Weber’s contention. As shown and described in the petition, Provisur relies on more than simply Young’s “top view” camera and “block 246.” See Pet. 29–31. Rather, in its petition, Provisur annotates Young’s Figure 2 to show that image data from all three cameras of “imaging system 190”—“top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, [and] fat line camera 198”—play a role in the determination of fat thickness.8 Id. at 30. Moreover, Provisur cites the entire process depicted in “Figure 13” and described in columns “22:53–24:38” of Young as critical to the determination. Id. at 31. Those cited portions of Young involve not only the analysis of fat/lean and edge lines from “top view” images (block 246), but also the analysis of fat/lean and edge lines from “end view” images (blocks 250 and 254). See Ex. 1004, 23:12–24:13. In other words, Provisur’s showing for the claimed fat thickness determination is based on Young’s collective analysis of all those images. Indeed, Provisur’s expert confirms as much when confronted by Weber on cross-examination— Q. How does [Young] use the other cameras to identify that fat/lean separation line? A. Again, this is a -- this is a three-dimensional product that’s not regular, and all the views basically are needed to be able to describe that complex three-dimensional shape, so that the knife will be able to cut at that -- at that line, offset by whatever desired thickness there is, on that three-dimensional shape. Ex. 2006, 25:15–27:19 (emphasis added). 8 Indeed, contrary to Weber’s assertion, Provisur highlights “fat lean separation camera 198,” not top view camera 196, as most critical to the determination of fat thickness. Pet. 31. In the end, we reject the notion that Provisur changed theories” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,321 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,321
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00146 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Trove did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and the preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10–19 of the ’879 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, 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.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for the term “user release mechanism,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–23; Prelim. Resp. 27–30. Patent Owner also proposes constructions for “automatically disengage the first and second catch structures,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 30– 32. For purposes of this particular Decision, we determine that no term requires construction to decide whether to institute inter partes review of the ’879 patent. 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.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “First, Petitioner’s reason to modify Kiyota “to provide the advantage of a bite actuated mouthpiece” (Pet. 42) does not explain why one would use Choi’s mount 100. Petitioner has not clearly established that to use a bite-actuated mouthpiece requires mount 100. Choi describes that “cap assembly 14 may include a mount 100 to which the bite-actuated mouthpiece is removably mounted, or secured.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. This description suggests that mount 100 is not a required component for a bite-actuated mouthpiece. Our understanding is supported by Patent Owner’s expert, who testified that using Choi’s mount as a “rigid collar member” in Kiyota’s mouthpiece assembly does not require combining its bite-actuated valve because “the bite-actuated portion has nothing to do with the alleged rigid collar member portion.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 119 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 46); see also Prelim. Resp. 55. Thus, Petitioner has not adequately supported this first reason to modify Kiyota to use Choi’s mount 100.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,165,879
• Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00159 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 19 are unpatentable over Minami; claims 1–3, 7, 16–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Good or Munsing.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “lululemon contends, and Nike does not dispute, that a person skilled in the art in the relevant time frame would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear” and such person’s “additional experience compensates for any differences in that person’s education as stated above.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex.1003 ¶¶ 33–35); see also PO Resp. 14 (“For purposes of this proceeding, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). We find that lululemon’s proposed definition is consistent with the problems and solutions described in the ’046 patent and the prior art of record. Thus, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We are not persuaded by lululemon’s attempt to equate the term “channel” in that passage with an open-periphery configuration. Nowhere does that passage indicate that the “channel” has an open-periphery. Instead, lululemon merely presumes, without support, that channels are open-periphery structures. More accurately, the terms “tunnel” and “channel” in the passage cited by lululemon are used synonymously. That is made clear by the overall context of the ’046 patent at issue, which is directed to how tubular rib structures 126 are formed by “first” and “second” curved portions 416 and 418 that are “knitted together” to define “hollow tube 112.” See Ex. 1001, 10:16–11:14, Figs. 4, 5 (emphasis added). In particular, the sentence cited by lululemon describes hollow tube 112 as being “disposed between” first and second curved portions 416 and 418, which Figures 4 and 5 of the ’046 patent clearly depict in a closed-periphery configuration. See id. at 10:66–11:3, Figs. 4, 5. Moreover, the very next sentence expressly describes that hollow tube 112 has “a generally cylindrical or elliptical shape” wherein “[t]he diameter of one hollow tube and the diameter of other hollow tubes may differ in some embodiments.” Id. at 11:3–14 (emphases added). We are not aware of any open-periphery channels being described as having a cylindrical or elliptical shape, nor are we aware of such a channel being described as having a diameter. Thus, lululemon’s proposed claim construction ignores the context surrounding the ’046 patent’s description of the tubular rib structures when it describes them as having the configuration of a tunnel or channel.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Nike, given our construction of the claimed “tubular structures.” As shown in annotated Figures 1, 3, and 4 of Good (reproduced below), Good discloses a sock 12 having rib portions 22 (red) and webbed areas 24 (green). See PO Resp. 19. lululemon contends that Good’s rib portions 22 meet the claimed “tubular structures” because each rib portion 22 “roll[s] substantially together in the relaxed condition” and “has the shape of a tube, namely an elongate hollow structure.” Pet. 29–30. In support, lululemon points to Good’s Figure 3 (reproduced below center) as allegedly showing the tubular shape of Good’s rib portions 22. Id. at 30. Annotated Figure 3 is a vertical cross-section of rib portions 22 (red) shown in Good’s Figure 1. But, as Nike correctly notes, Good’s rib portions 22 are “C-shaped knitted portions,” which when stretched, go from an essentially C-shaped configuration (Figure 3) to a relatively flat, linear configuration (Figure 4). PO Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 48–49). Nowhere does Good disclose that the ends of C-shaped rib portions 22 ever meet and remain in a closed periphery configuration to form a hollow tube per our construction of “tubular structures” (as discussed above in Section II.B). In at least this way, Good’s C-shaped rib portions 22 differ from the claimed “tubular structures.”7 Thus, we find that Good does not disclose or otherwise suggest the claimed “tubular structures,” as properly construed, meaning that lululemon fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Good either anticipates claims 1–3, 7, 16–18, and 20, or, alternatively, renders obvious claim 3.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we said that Munsing lacks the claimed “tubular structures” because “nowhere does Munsing indicate that the rows of stitches or loops form a rib that is tubular-like, let alone one with a closed periphery.” Inst. Dec. 10–12. During the trial phase, lululemon’s expert likewise agreed, conceding (on cross-examination) that Munsing only discloses non-tubular structures. See Ex. 2007, 40:9–41:11 (“Q [by Patent Owner’s counsel]: So you agree that . . . Munsing only discloses a nontubular rib? A [by lululemon’s expert]: That’s what I said.”). Nowhere does lululemon rebut that admission by its own expert, despite Nike noting it explicitly as a reason for rejecting Ground 2. Compare PO Resp. 25–26 (noting the admission of lululemon’s expert), with Pet. Reply 1–26 (addressing only Grounds 1 and 3, while omitting any mention of Ground 2, which is based on Munsing). Nor does lululemon ever dispute the preliminary findings in our Institution Decision as to why Munsing is not an anticipatory reference. Compare Inst. Dec. 10–12, with Pet. Reply 1–22. Thus, lululemon fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Munsing anticipates challenged claims 1–3, 7, 17, 18, and 20.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,375,046 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,375,046
• Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00032 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 are obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “At least because of the material differences in Ferro compared to Hafner ’174 and the reliance on Donnelly and Letendre, which were not before the Office, we find that the same or substantially the same art was not previously presented to the Office.” slip op. at 12

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

    “information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. It is true that Oyobe focuses on alerting a vehicle user to a low state of charge by raising a physical indicator on the exterior of the vehicle (i.e., the “informing apparatus 102) when the battery is low. Ex. 1005 ¶ 40. Oyobe explains: even in such a case where the vehicle user exit from the vehicle without checking the SOC of main battery B on the console panel, informing apparatus 102 disposed at a location where it can easily be seen outside the vehicle by the vehicle user allows the vehicle user to easily recognize the necessity of charging main battery B. Id. However, Oyobe’s focus on raising a physical indicator on the vehicle as a reminder does not detract from Oyobe’s unambiguous disclosure that its vehicle also includes position detecting apparatus 108 that uses wireless communication to “sense that the vehicle is parked at the location where charging equipment is installed.” Id. ¶ 142. Oyobe’s ability to sense whether a vehicle is parked next to a charger allows Oyobe’s system to remind the user to charge the battery by raising low battery indicator 102 while the vehicle is located next to a charger but not “where charging cannot be performed.” Id. ¶¶ 143–145. Accordingly, regardless of the reason that Oyobe provides for including its vehicle position detecting apparatus, Oyobe undeniably describes a vehicle sensor that can provide “information indicative of a presence of an electric vehicle in a parking space” near a charging station. And, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently explained why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Oyobe’s sensor in Ferro’s electric vehicle to “advantageously allows a user to instruct charging without exiting the vehicle and physically interacting with a charging station.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150–152).” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner violates Rule 42.6(a)(3) by improperly incorporating arguments from Mr. Andrews’s Declaration into the Petition to establish that Oyobe teaches sensing the presence of a vehicle in a “parking space” as recited in limitation 1e. Prelim. Resp. 42–43 (citing Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–181)). Patent Owner contends that Mr. Andrews’s citation of four references that are not expressly cited in the Petition, Exhibits 1018, 1053, 1057, and 1059, implicitly demonstrates that the Petition incorporates arguments by reference. Id. Not only do we find Petitioner’s reliance on Mr. Andrews’s testimony to be persuasive, but we also find that Mr. Andrews’s citations to Exhibits 1018, 1053, 1057, and 1059 provide strong support for his testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that Oyobe teaches that its vehicle is in a parking space when Oyobe’s apparatus 108 detects that “the vehicle is parked” near charging equipment. Far from improperly incorporating arguments by reference, we find Mr. Andrews’s citation to objective evidence to support his opinions on how an ordinarily skilled artisan would read Oyobe’s disclosure to be preferred and highly persuasive.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,563,338
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01501 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Trove did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, or 21 obvious over the asserted prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and the preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 21 of the ’028 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56–65). Patent Owner also states that it “discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding.” Id. We agree that there appears to be no material difference in the parties’ definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’028 patent, based on our review of the limited record. Moreover, the prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because “mechanism” is a nonce word for performing the claimed function without reciting structure for performing that function, and a POSITA would not have understood the term to have “a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure that performs the claimed function.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 39). For claim 1, Petitioner identifies two distinct structures described in the ’028 patent that correspond to the claimed “user release mechanism” for performing the claimed functions. Id. at 34. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the ’028 patent describes a first embodiment in which the corresponding structure includes sliding member 238, and its component parts. Id. at 34– 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:50–13:25, 13:29–33). In the second embodiment, the corresponding structure includes user engagement portion 260 on rigid collar 170. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:40–54). Petitioner does not separately address the structure corresponding to the “user release mechanism” as recited in claim 21. Id. at 53‒54 (relying on the same arguments presented for unpatentability of claim 1). court issued a claim construction order in the parallel litigation construing the term “user release mechanism” as a means-plus-function limitation under § 112, sixth paragraph. Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2002, 12–15). The district court ruled that the corresponding structure for claim 1 includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts,” or “[u]ser engagement portion 260.” Ex. 2002, 15. For claim 21, the district court ruled that the corresponding structure includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts” or “[u]ser engagement pad 240, planar portion 242, tabs 244, collar engagement portion 254, depression 256.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner indicates that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding only,” it does not dispute that the claimed user release mechanisms are means-plusfunction limitations, and it does not dispute the corresponding structure identified by Petitioner, even though the district court did not specifically identify engagement portion 260 as corresponding structure for claim 21. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2002, 15–19). Although Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the “user release mechanism,” because claim interpretation is a matter of law and the dispositive issue in this Decision turns on the interpretation of this claim limitation, we address it in this Decision. We agree with the parties that the “user release mechanism” elements recited in claims 1 and 21 are means-plus-function limitations governed by § 112, sixth paragraph. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”). “means,” it uses the nonce word “mechanism” without reciting structure for performing the functions recited in the claims. See Williamson v. CitrixOnline, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word “means” because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “[U]nder § 112, ¶ 6 equivalence, functional identity is required” and “[s]tructural equivalence under § 112, ¶ 6 is met only if the differences are insubstantial, that is, if the assertedly equivalent structure performs the claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding structure described in the specification.” (citing Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Here, Petitioner states that Kiyota’s lock release buttons 40 “perform the claimed function in the same way to achieve the same result” as the ’028 patent’s sliding member 238, and its component parts (Pet. 37) without providing sufficient supporting explanation or evidence. Petitioner explains only that the two structures operate in “substantially the same way” by a user pressing an element that that slides towards the mouthpiece assembly to disengage the catch structures. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). The Petition does not discuss any of the differences between Kiyota’s structure and the ’028 patent’s structure or provide an explanation of why these differences are insubstantial. Indeed, as Patent Owner persuasively explains, there are notable differences in the “way” the two structures perform the claimed function and the “result” they achieve. See Prelim. Resp. 39–40 (discussing the ’028 patent’s one-finger operation and indirect catch disengagement, versus Kiyota’s two-finger operation and direct catch disengagement). Moreover, the analysis in Dr. Vallee’s declaration substantially parallels the discussion in the Petition and does not provide any additional explanation or evidence to show that the differences between the “way” the two structures operate or the “result” they achieve are insubstantial. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91, with Pet. 34–38. For these reasons, Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that Kiyota discloses an equivalent structure to the structure described in the ’028 patent corresponding to the “user release mechanism” recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Kiyota. slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,782,028

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.