- PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01211 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 18–47 and 53–74 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–25, 27, and 29–33 are obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition … and any response … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all of the claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill of the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that the open-ended language ‘at least’ expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby also encompassing those of extraordinary skill as well. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 120 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). We agree with Petitioner that, on the record presently before us, no claim term requires express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues that, in view of these teachings in Racz and Lee, a skilled artisan would have found implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38) to be a routine engineering task. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the arts would have recognized that it would be appropriate to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) without including Lee’s central filament. Id. Petitioner asserts that Lee discloses that any number and arrangement of filaments may be implemented to provide a desired ablation volume. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 103, 105, 106). Additionally, Petitioner argues, because Racz’s tip (14/38) is already active, a skilled artisan would have recognized that Lee’s central filament would not be necessary. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, col. 3, ll. 60–63, col. 4, ll. 18–23; Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). Petitioner therefore argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter deployable filaments (22/1622) on the distal tip (14/38) of Racz’s cannula (10/33) for the purpose of expanding and controlling the energy coverage area of Racz’s device. Pet. 40. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) around Racz’s tip (14/38) to provide a desired ablation volume (e.g., in a full or partial “cone” shape) and omit Lee’s central filament. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 179, 73–75, 79–83). Petitioner contends that, as both Lee and Fitz confirm, this would improve Racz’s device by providing an expanded and controlled energy coverage area. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9–10, Abstr.; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12, 84, 123–131; Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). Petitioner argues further that, in implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s tip (14/38) to include internal deflection surfaces (12/1612) (e.g., channels and ramps as disclosed in Lee) to guide the perimeter filaments (22/1622) outwardly around Racz’s tip (14/38). Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 18, 92, 102, claims 8, 10; Ex. 1033 ¶ 180). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to provide openings in Racz’s distal tip (14/38) (e.g., in communication the internal deflection surfaces as disclosed in Lee) such that Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) can, when deployed, exit Racz’s distal tip (14/38). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 92, 102; Ex. 1033 ¶ 180). Furthermore, argues Petitioner, and to preserve the functionality of Racz’s removable electrical probe (22/52) and active tip (14/38) (and consistent with Lee’s teachings) a skilled artisan would have arranged the perimeter filaments, channels, and ramps around the internal perimeter of Racz’s cannula (10/33). Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 91, 92, 98, 102; Ex. 1033 ¶ 181). Petitioner recapitulates that Racz’s probe (22/52) is configured to extend the full length of the cannula’s shaft (12/34) to supply RF energy to the tip (14/38) and measure tissue temperature. Pet. 42. According to Petitioner, by omitting Lee’s central filament and arranging the perimeter filaments, channels, and ramps around the inner perimeter of Racz’s cannula (10/33), a skilled artisan could have implemented Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) without obstructing Racz’s cannula (10/33). Id. at 40. Petitioner contends that this modification would preserve the functionality of Racz’s electrical probe (22/52), which is needed to transmit RF energy. Id. (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 181–182).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,736,688 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01210 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17 and 48–52 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition … and any response … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all of the claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill of the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that the open-ended language ‘at least’ expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby also encompassing those of extraordinary skill as well. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶ 120 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). We agree with Petitioner that, on the record presently before us, no claim term requires express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter deployable filaments (22/1622) on the distal tip (14/38) of Racz’s cannula (10/33) for the purpose of expanding and controlling the energy coverage area of Racz’s device. Pet. 35. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) around Racz’s tip (14/38) to provide a desired ablation volume (e.g., in a full or partial “cone” shape) and omit Lee’s central filament. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 179, 73–75, 79–83). Petitioner contends that, as both Lee and Fitz confirm, this would improve Racz’s device by providing an expanded and controlled energy coverage area. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9–10, Abstr.; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12, 84, 123–131; Ex. 1032 ¶ 179). Petitioner argues further that, in implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s tip (14/38) to include internal deflection surfaces (12/1612) (e.g., channels and ramps as disclosed in Lee) to guide the perimeter filaments (22/1622) outwardly around Racz’s tip (14/38). Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 18, 92, 102, claims 8, 10; Ex. 1032 ¶ 180). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to provide openings in Racz’s distal tip (14/38) (e.g., in communication the internal deflection surfaces as disclosed in Lee) such that Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) can, when deployed, exit Racz’s distal tip (14/38). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 92, 102; Ex. 1032 ¶ 180).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,736,688 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–12 and 19–28 over Linnarsson, McCloskey, and ordinary skill; claims 13–18 over those references plus McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 16 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 22. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014-00148, Paper 429 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not directly dispute Petitioner’s proposal but does offer its own proposal. PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner proposes that the skilled artisan “would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, molecular genetics, biochemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with 7 Exhibit 1002 is a declaration by Petitioner’s witness, Gregory Cooper, Ph.D. two years of academic, research, or industry experience in the field of genomic or transcriptome sequencing.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶25–268). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’013 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,697,013 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,697,013 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2025 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–4, 6–11, 20, and 23–25 over Linnarsson and McCloskey; claims 5, 12, 21, 22, and 26 with ordinary-skill knowledge; claims 13–19 with McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s in the prior sentence and in the subtitle to the relevant portion of its Objection. Id. requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 29. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014- 00148, Paper 4210 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded 10 Patent Owner actually cited to “Pap.41” of Standard Innovation. PO Mot. To Exclude 4. There is no Paper 41 in the record of that case. We presume Patent Owner intended to cite Paper 42, which is the final written decision in that case. by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 15 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1. That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we find Petitioner’s rationale that a skilled artisan would have made the proposed combination to solve the problem of amplification bias persuasive.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 10,240,197 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,240,197 - Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,198,416 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01090 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8, 13, and 15–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over the Fells-based combinations set out in the grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 13) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“charger surface, to inductively transfer power to the receiver [of the first mobile device],” as recited in limitation 1(k). Pet. 5 (bolding omitted). Petitioner contends this term should be construed as a means-plus-function term, and that the underlined portion identified above identifies the function. Id. at 5–6. Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure is described in the Specification and in dependent claims 24 and 25. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:35–38 (“[T]he charger and or receiver can include means to provide more precise alignment between the charger and receiver coils and antennas. These can include visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist the user in alignment of parts.”); 25:56–63 (claim 24: “the means for position includes one or more magnets to position the receiver in the power transfer position”, claim 25: “means for positioning includes one or more members of a group consistent of visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist in the positioning the receiver in the power transfer position.”)). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our Decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). As stated above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contentions. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and conclude that they show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8, 13, and 15–18 of the ’349 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyOther
“[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” Commscope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (emphasis added). This is the standard I previously applied to Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. Inst. Dec. (Fitzpatrick, J., concurring at 2). During trial, all of Petitioner’s challenges went unrebutted, including Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. See PO Resp. 1 (Patent Owner “elects to not proffer additional argument on the papers or through any hearings that may occur in this proceeding.”). Thus, because I previously determined Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17 presented compelling merits and because Patent Owner did not rebut that challenge during trial, I conclude that Petitioner has necessarily met its burden of proving claim 17 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,292,349 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01089 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over the Fells-based grounds; the Board adopted the unrebutted petition analyses.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 12) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“obvious over Fells. Pet. 7–76. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. Having considered the arguments and evidence before us, we find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 would have been obvious over Fells. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,292,349 - PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-01014 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Barbour would render the challenged claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Anticipation by or Obviousness over Barbour Petitioner asserts that Barbour anticipates and/or renders obvious all challenged claims. Pet. 6, 41–67. Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions. Barbour is the published 2004 application and shares the same disclosure as the ’378 patent. Based on this record, we find Petitioner’s arguments on anticipation and/or obviousness persuasive. Thus, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of the challenged claims. We institute inter partes review of all challenged claims on all of the grounds in the Petition.” slip op. at 21
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledDecided for petitioner
“4. Summary In sum, based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the disclosure of the 2004 application, by itself, fails to enable POSAs to practice the challenged claims without undue experimentation. In addition, Patent Owner has not shown that TC1507 was “known and readily available to the public” as of the filing date of the 2004 application. Therefore, the 2004 application does not enable the challenged claims, and the challenged claims are not entitled to the 2004 priority date. The earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims is, thus, July 6, 2007, which is the filing date of the 2007 application.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“4. Summary In sum, based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the disclosure of the 2004 application, by itself, fails to enable POSAs to practice the challenged claims without undue experimentation. In addition, Patent Owner has not shown that TC1507 was “known and readily available to the public” as of the filing date of the 2004 application. Therefore, the 2004 application does not enable the challenged claims, and the challenged claims are not entitled to the 2004 priority date. The earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims is, thus, July 6, 2007, which is the filing date of the 2007 application.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Thus, the critical issue is not, as Patent Owner asserts, whether “the same application can be simultaneously enabling and not enabling.” Id. at 32. It is whether TC1507 was “known and readily available” to the public at the relevant time. As explained above, for the priority determination, the relevant time is April 30, 2004, the filing date of the 2004 application. Patent Owner has not produced or pointed to any evidence to show TC1507 corn “readily available” to the public without restrictions as of the filing date of the 2004 application. On the other hand, for prior-art status determination, the relevant time is February 16, 2006, the publication date of Barbour. Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence, which Patent Owner does not challenge, to show that, by 2006, corn harvested from TC1507 plants was “commercially available following the 2003, 2004, and 2005 growing seasons” and “[s]uch corn was sold as a commodity—without any contractual restrictions” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 134). As a result, based on the current record, we find Petitioner has established sufficiently that, as of its publication date in February 2006, Barbour is prior art that would have enabled practice of the subject matter encompassed by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 20
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,901,378
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.