• Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2023-01439 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9–11, 24–26, 28, 29, 35, and 36 on all asserted §103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Upon considering the argument and evidence presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’803 Patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 15–16). We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it appears to be consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary 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 required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Conventional terms ('about', 'substantially', 'a'/'an', 'configured to')Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding—and without a substantive response from Patent Owner—we determine Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the plain ordinary meaning of “about” and the intrinsic evidence. The claim recites that the carbon chain length of the bio-alkene is “about 5 to about 20 carbons atoms.” Ex. 1001, claim 1 (emphasis added). We agree with respect to the claimed range. See Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters. Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When ‘about’ is used as part of a numeric range, the use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numeric boundary to the specified parameter.”) (internal quotations omitted). In other words, the claim term “about 5 to about 20 carbon atoms” does not require precisely 5 to 20 carbon atoms. Moreover, we agree that a carbon atom in a compound is not divisible. Keeping these principles in mind, we find “about 5” at the lower end of the range encompasses a carbon chain length of 4 carbon atoms, and “about 20” at the upper end of the range encompasses a carbon chain length of 21. We also agree with Petitioner that the prosecution history of the related ’902 Application—which also claims the benefit of the ’985 Provisional and shares a virtually identical specification as the ’803 Patent— supports construing “about” to encompass one additional carbon atom, as evidenced by the amendment after allowance amending the term “carbon chain length of about 8 to about 20” to “carbon chain length of 7 to 20.” See Ex. 1006, 335 see also id. at 16, 23–63. Thus, the intrinsic evidence supports Petitioner’s construction and the plain ordinary meaning of “about.”” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,882,803
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01325 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–6 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 1, 4, and 4–6 of the ’033 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “concerning the ’834 patent, the intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful in revealing an affirmative meaning for the claims’ “spacing(s)” terms. IPR2023-01151, Paper 12, 39–41. The Specification does not use the term “spacings” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful, but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them. And, portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. For example, the applicant distinguished claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 2140, 1001 (suggesting a more “loosely defined fiber structure” may be covered); see also Ex. 1002, 29–30 (asserting the claimed design has “a lesser [fiber] density construction” compared to Walther). This begs the question, at what point does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” convert to a cloth having a “loosely defined” fiber structure that would come within the scope of the claimed “spacings?” The record does not answer. Applicant’s suggestion during prosecution that the claimed spacings between fibers are “intentionally placed” about the frame and not simply “the spacing that may be inherent” in fibrous cloths is also unavailing on this record in clearly defining the metes and bounds of the term. Ex. 1002, 28–29. Whether the alleged absence of “objective boundaries” for the term “spacings” supports a conclusion that the claims are invalid as indefinite would be a question for the court. Paper 11, 5 (arguing There is insufficient technical detail available to determine whether the SAPIEN 3 Ultra does or does not include “spacings” as claimed and we take no position on whether such device infringes any claim of the ’033 patent. that a conclusion that the claims are indefinite is “outside the Board’s [IPR] jurisdiction”).12 Notwithstanding the lack of any express claim construction for the “spacings” term from either party, claim 1 of the ’033 patent requires something more than just “spacings.” Claim 1 requires “spacings extending through a thickness of the sealing assembly that allow fluid to pass therethrough when the prosthetic heart valve assembly is in an undeployed state.” Ex. 1001, 22:11–15 (emphasis added). In other words, the spacings must allow fluid to pass through the sealing assembly’s thickness when the valve is undeployed. For reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded on this record that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that this limitation is met—particularly the fluid-passing element—in the proposed combinations of Spenser or Levi with Spenser II.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We, thus, find Dr. Brecker’s testimony more credible that “[i]t would, accordingly, be counterintuitive for a [POSA] to look to a device designed to occlude a blood vessel when designing a TAVR.” Id. ¶¶ 119–120 (testifying “[n]o [POSA] would look to this [occluder] design when considering a TAVR valve and . . . would further have concerns about the pro-thrombotic potential of the arrangement of fibers in Chuter”). Where a proposed combination would run counter to the primary reference’s stated purpose, the POSA would not generally be motivated to make that combination. Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 43

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner

    “Grounds 1 and 2 is based on the combination of either Levi and Spenser II, or Spenser and Spenser II. Yet Petitioner purports to modify Spenser II’s compressible material, or supplant it with something else, based on “porous” fabrics allegedly known elsewhere in the art, which art is not identified in the Petition itself as part of any asserted combination. Pet. 49. To see what specific modifications or combinations Petitioner might be suggesting, requires we look to three paragraphs of Dr. Buller’s Declaration, cited but not discussed by Petitioner, where eight additional references are mentioned. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (identifying Exs. 1106–1112, and 1129). This format is an improper incorporation-by-reference of argument and evidence that, had Petitioner wanted to pursue some other combination of asserted art beyond Levi, Spenser, and Spenser II, needed to be set forth explicitly in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Moreover, it leaves the record unclear and forces Patent Owner, the Board, and the public to guess at what combination(s) are, in fact, being urged. We also find that Petitioner’s position reveals a hindsight bias insofar as it suggests, with the aim of arriving at the claimed subject matter, removing Spenser II’s “sufficiently dense” and fluid impermeable compressible material (Ex. 2128 ¶ 222) in favor of some other sufficiently “porous” and fluid permeable material. Hindsight is further evidenced because Spenser II’s cited material is already described as being compressible and adapted to allow coagulation and tissue ingrowth—factors cited by Patent Owner as allegedly motivating a change to some other material. Ex. 1011 ¶ 145. Altogether, we find unpersuasive Petitioner’s position based on unspecified combinations of unasserted prior art to achieve benefits that Spenser II’s existing compressible material already provides.” slip op. at 36

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,491,033
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01232 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 11–13 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 11–13 of the ’310 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in November 2012 “would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. This [POSA] would, where necessary, work with a medical device engineer to experiment with or manufacture a prosthetic heart valve.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50). Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s proposed definition or offer an alternative. See generally Prelim. Resp. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This POSA level is also consistent with the level the Board applied in earlier decisions involving the same parties and related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 2124, 11; Ex. 1120, 11–12.” slip op. at 14

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

    “construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims’ language in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA, in view of the patent’s specification and considering the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only as needed to resolve the matters in dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner contends that “[n]o terms of the ’310 patent require construction to resolve the patentability issues herein.” Pet. 19. Also, Petitioner contends, its “grounds are based on [Patent Owner’s] allegations that the ’310 patent covers Petitioner’s SAPIEN 3 Ultra valve and the scope of the claims asserted by [Patent Owner] in litigation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1122 (Complaint); Ex. 1123 (Infringement Contentions), 2, 262–476).11 Patent Owner does not propose any express claim construction. Instead, Patent Owner contends that the claims should be interpreted according to their ordinary and customary meaning. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 18–19, 35–36 (asserting that Petitioner’s mapping of the claims is, in respects, contrary to the “plain language” of the claims). 11 Petitioner identifies a claim construction order in related litigation where the district court construed an “outer frame” as a “self-expanding frame.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1140, 17). We need not further construe the “outer frame” term here because Petitioner contends, without dispute, that the prior art discloses self-expanding frames. Id. at 19–20, 26. Moreover, Patent Owner states that it has disclaimed those claims reciting the term “outer frame” to reduce the number of issues before the Board. Prelim. Resp. 75. about the scope of the claims, we address those arguments below in our discussion of the mapping of claims to the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We are unpersuaded. The language of claim 11 states the “sealing material is attached to the frame,” but also that it is the plurality of outwardly-extending “fibers” that maintain “contact with the frame along the height of the sealing material” whether the valve assembly is compressed or expanded. Supra Section II(D). Thus, according to this plain language, Petitioner must demonstrate that Spenser II’s identified fibers contact with the frame in its modification of Spenser or Levi—not just that some portion of Spenser II’s compressible material be attached to and contact the frame. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contrary interpretation is “at-odds with the plain language of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 18, 35. The cited excerpt from the prosecution history does not support Petitioner’s position that the “in contact” limitation is met if the sealing material—but not necessarily the fibers—contacts the frame. Petitioner cites an assertion by applicant during prosecution that modifying Levi’s valve so that the “sealing material” is in contact with the frame would not show that the claimed subject matter is obvious. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002, 147–148). In its more complete context, however, applicant’s prosecution argument was made in furtherance of applicant’s repeated assertion that replacing Levi’s loosely-fit, “billowing” skirt with a tightly-held and bulky sleeve would change Levi’s principle of operation and make it too large and Resp. 35–36 (arguing applicant’s position is also “consistent” with claims’ plain language because, if Levi’s billowing skirt included outwardly-extending fibers, such fibers could not contact the frame along the skirt’s height when it billows out from the frame).15 Applicant’s argument does not rise to a concession that the “fibers in contact with the frame” limitation can be met so long as the sealing material contacts the frame. At best for Petitioner, the relevant prosecution history could be characterized as ambiguous; it does not justify rewriting claim 11’s plain language. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 127–128 (earlier version of proposed amendment to application claim 31, reciting “the sealing material is in contact with the outer frame”), 138–139 (later version of the proposed and as-entered amendment, expressly changing the language to require “the plurality of fibers is in contact with the outer frame”).” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,389,310
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01251 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all asserted grounds challenging claims 1–12, 14–28, and 30, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’056 patent is unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we have not made a final determination regarding the patentability of any challenged claim or any underlying factual and legal issues. See TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that “there is a significant difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence at trial”). Any final decision in this proceeding will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 48

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1008 (Gross Decl.) ¶ 51). Patent Owner indicates that it does not dispute this portion of Petitioner’s proposal. See Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner also posits that “[t]he POSITA may be part of an interdisciplinary team with others having relevant experience and/or with clinicians involved in diagnosis, treatment, and patient management relevant to the use of medical devices for monitoring physiological signals” and “would have been aware of commercially available glucose monitoring systems (e.g., the Medtronic Paradigm® REAL-Time) through scientific journals and magazines,” “would have known the importance of data reliability to glucose monitoring, including anticipating that errors (e.g., communication or calibration failures) would result in missing or inaccurate glucose data,” and would have accounted for missing data using technical concepts known at the time, including programming glucose monitoring systems to detect failures that result in data being unavailable for display (e.g., due to a calibration error or loss of communication), preserving this data in memory, regenerating it once the system recovered, and displaying regenerated data. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1008 (Gross Decl.) ¶¶ 52, 54–61). Patent Owner does not specifically comment on or dispute this portion of Petitioner’s proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s full proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Neither party proposes that any claim term requires an express construction. See Pet. 14; Prelim. Resp. 24. We find it unnecessary to construe any claim term to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Any final written decision entered in this case may include express claim constructions, or may include discussion of claim scope that differs from that provided in our analysis below. Any final claim constructions will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We determine that Petitioner’s proffered reason to combine is sufficient for purposes of institution. Petitioner does not merely rely on the fact that Patel-2008, Mastrototaro, Shahmirian, and Causey are from same field of study or address the same problem. Instead, Petitioner points to Patel-2008’s express discussion of the utility of Mastrototaro, Shahmirian, and Causey’s teachings, together with the fact that all of the references apparently discuss different components of the same system (i.e., the Medtronic MiniMed continuous glucose monitoring system). See, e.g., Pet. 83–84; Ex. 1008 (Gross Decl.) ¶¶ 55, 70–71. On this record, we find for purposes of institution that Dr. Gross sufficiently establishes that “POSITAs would have been motivated to combine the sensor and transmitter of Mastrototaro, the communications of Shahmirian, and the monitor control programs of Causey to effectuate a diabetes management system with the monitoring, communication, and display functionalities disclosed in Patel-2008,” and “to convey as much accurate glucose information to a user as possible without providing inaccurate information.” Ex. 1008 (Gross Decl.) ¶¶ 190–93. Patent Owner’s argument that “nothing in Patel-2008 teaches or suggests incorporating these disparate teachings into a single system” (Prelim. Resp. 47–48) is unavailing. First, as noted above, Patel-2008 expressly teaches using in its system components described in Mastrototaro, Shahmirian, and Causey. Second, even if Patent Owner were correct that Patel-2008 lacks a teaching or suggestion to incorporate Mastrototaro, Shahmirian, and Causey’s teachings into Patel-2008’s system, Patel-2008 itself need not express a reason to combine. Rather, “[a]ny motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed [invention].” Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As noted above, we find that Petitioner’s rationales are sufficiently supported by Dr. Gross and the cited references for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 43

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,298,056
• Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Noble Innovations NC L.L.C.Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01254 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 5–18 on all six asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under at least one ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions in view of the preliminary record, we conclude Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’332 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. See Pet.; Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ORDINARY LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends: A POSITA,[11] on or before August 17, 2007, or alternatively on or before April 11, 2008, would have had a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree in Industrial Design, Mechanical Engineering, or related field and approximately 5 years of professional experience in the field of consumer product design and manufacturing. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 44).” slip op. at 10

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

    “CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner asserts that the claim language “angled capsule retaining elements” is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), where the function is “retaining an oral care capsule in a capsule receiving zone,” and the Specification’s corresponding structure is “angled bristles.” Pet. 8–11 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:59–61, 2:65–67, 3:20–22, 4:64–5:13, 6:23–24, 6:26–30, 6:34–37, 7:19–23, 7:33–42, 9:61–10:1, 10:5–8, Figs. 1, 4, 5, 6; Ex. 1002, 224; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 96–97). Petitioner argues that “angled capsule retaining elements” is non- structural and includes the generic placeholder nonce word “elements,” modified by functional language, and the claim does not further recite sufficiently definite structure for the elements. Id. at 8–9. Thus, it is Petitioner’s position that this limitation, although not using the presumptive word “means,” should be interpreted to be a means-plus-function limitation. Further, Petitioner argues that the only structure disclosed in the ’332 patent’s Specification that performs the claimed function is “angled bristles,” and that the Specification’s express mentioning of the term “retaining element” relates to a non-claimed feature having a different function, i.e., a movable back cover on the toothbrush to contain rear-loaded capsules in the head. Id. at 11 (discussing Ex. 1001, 5:10–19, 6:8–25; Ex. 1002, 228, 353–355). Patent Owner does not directly address Petitioner’s claim construction position. See generally Prelim. Resp. However, even if not addressing whether the claim language is a means-plus-function limitation, Patent Owner appears to agree with Petitioner that the claims’ scope includes angled bristles as the recited retaining elements, as disclosed in the Specification, although not expressly conceding at this point that the claims are limited to the disclosed angled bristles structure and equivalents under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). See id. at 3–4 (citing paragraph 36 and Figure 1 of the application that issued as the ’332 patent). For the purposes of this institution decision, we find it unnecessary to construe any claim language because there is no dispute that the “angled capsule retaining elements” limitation recited by the claims includes angled bristles, even if it may not be limited to only such a structure (and its equivalents), and we find that angled bristles appear to be taught in the prior art, as discussed below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Thus, whether or not the disputed claim language constitutes a means-plus-function limitation is not determinative at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Motivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “2. Analysis We find that, on the current record, Petitioner has sufficiently mapped the limitations of the claims to the disclosures of Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, identified a reason with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the 15 Although we note that Patent Owner submits no supporting evidence, we do so with the understanding that Patent Owner was not required to do so, as the burden here is upon, and remains with, Petitioner. references, and identified that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,881,332
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01151 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged, undisclaimed claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 2, 9, 17, and 18 of the ’834 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in November 2012 “would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. This [POSA] would, where necessary, work with a medical device engineer to experiment with or manufacture a prosthetic heart valve.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s proposed definition. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This POSA level is also consistent with the level the Board applied in earlier decisions involving the same parties and related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 2124, 11; Ex. 1120, 11–12.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “during prosecution. Pet. 18, 99. According to Petitioner, Spenser II never describes its compressible material as including “tightly knitted fibers” and a POSA would, instead, have understood Spenser II’s compressible material as comprising “loose, porous materials.” Pet. 18, 99. We agree with Petitioner that the phrases “tightly knitted” and “tightly knitted fibers” do not appear in Spenser II. At the same time, neither does Spenser II describe its compressible material as being “loose” and “porous.” Notably, in prior proceedings before the Board, Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Buller testified that Spenser II’s compressible material “includes a plurality of PET fibers on the inward-facing surface of the compressible material” (i.e., the “base layer” and alleged “second plurality” of fibers here; Paper 9, 5), that is “sufficiently dense to prevent blood from leaking through the cloth/fabric.” Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2122, 20:2–22:18 (testifying that “nonporous” as used in the Specification means “that fluid would not pass through it” and such fluid includes “all components of blood”). We find that Dr. Buller’s description of Spenser II as having a dense, blood impermeable base layer is, on balance, more consistent with applicant’s characterization of Spenser II as having an arrangement of “tightly-knitted fibers”—even if some imagined or microscopic spaces between fibers might still exist in a base layer. Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2002 (Brecker testimony) ¶¶ 42–45 (testifying, inter alia, that the description of a “tight fitted outer seal is . . . consistent with Spenser II’s Figure 22” and “knitted” is consistent with Buller’s testimony describing Spenser II’s compressible material as “velour-like woven or knitted” PET (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 162; Ex. 2134 ¶ 56). We are, thus, unpersuaded on this record that applicant mischaracterized Spenser II.” slip op. at 38

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

    “Altogether, the parties’ alleged “plain meaning” yet otherwise undefined interpretation of the “spacing” limitations leaves the Board with insufficient clarity about what the claimed “spacing” means in the affirmative. Paper 9, 3 (arguing “plain meaning”); Paper 11, 3 (arguing applicant’s arguments are in “full harmony with the plain meaning”). The intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful: the Specification does not use the term “spacing” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them.15 The prosecution history provides clues, but portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. The applicant distinguished 15 For example, Dr. Brecker, in support of Patent Owner’s argument, identifies several of the patent drawings and testifies that, “as is particularly clear in Figure 13 (but also present elsewhere), there are gaps and spaces between the fibers that extend to the frame” and then proceeds to testify that prior art, like Spenser II’s compressible material, “bears no resemblance” to the “exemplary” spacings identified in prosecution. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–43. Dr. Brecker’s articulation of a “spacing” does not seem to add anything meaningful beyond the language of the claim as written. And, simply comparing the patent drawings to the prior art drawings presumes a sort of “know-it when you see it” interpretation—it is not an affirmative construction for a “spacing” as claimed. the claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 1002, 1001. At what point, however, does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” qualify as more “loosely defined” and come within the scope of the claimed “spacing?”16 Id. The applicant also described the “spacing” in semi-functional terms based on “advantages” provided by the claim feature. See, e.g., id. (asserting, e.g., that the spacing permits “expansion and contraction” with “lesser rigidity”); see also id. at 1133, 1140 (asserting, e.g., “reduce[d] restrictions” and avoidance of “restrained valve foreshortening” with the then-claimed “openings”). It is not, however, evident where the Specification supports such “advantages”—no citations were given in prosecution. And, in prosecution of related applications, applicant argued, for example, that “[w]hile all fibers have some degree of being spaced-apart, the construction from Applicant’s claimed invention clearly requires some level more spacing.” Ex. 1149, 13–14 (assertion differences over “Dehdashtian” (alias to Spenser II)) (emphasis added). On this record, what would suffice as “some level more spacing” is unclear. Id.” slip op. at 39

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,337,834
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00532 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach Grounds 2–6.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Decision. See Ex. 3001, 12–23. As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s reliance on Sanofi and Eli Lilly. See PO Resp. 9. In Sanofi, a non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that the preamble to the claims at issue, reciting “[a] method of increasing survival comprising administering to a patient in need thereof” was limiting upon the claims, in conformance with the court’s prior decisions in Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Sanofi, 757 F. App’x at 992–93. Furthermore, the court held that, because the preamble was limiting, and recited a “method of increasing survival” the proposed claims would now clearly require “increasing survival.” Id. at 994. The preamble to claim 1 of the ’681 patent, however, recites no such “increase” with respect to efficacy, but merely recites “A method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient,” and the remainder of the claim requires no specific efficacy requirement. Nor does Eli Lilly support Patent Owner’s position. In Eli Lilly, the court upheld the Board’s conclusion that the preamble reciting “a method for treating headache in an individual” was limiting upon the claims. Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. However, it noted, in upholding the Board’s conclusion, the Board also “found that while the claims encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Id. (emphasis added). We also find that the similar language of the preamble to challenged claim 1 of the ’681 patent, although encompassing clinical efficacy, does not require it, let alone a “high degree of efficacy.”” slip op. at 33

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

    “the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating” requires a high level of efficacy. In the -00881 Decision, the Board rejected Patent Owner’s similar argument because it required improperly importing limitations into the claims. See Ex. 3001, 22. Specifically, the Board found that: [W]hen the Specification explains that “[t]he amount of VEGF antagonist administered to the patient in each dose is, in most cases, a therapeutically effective amount,” and discloses that “a therapeutically effective amount can be from about 0.05 mg to about 5 mg,” we find that a POSA would have understood that any dosage amount within that range administered according to the invention may, in some cases, result in a detectable improvement in “one or more symptoms or indicia of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or be one that “inhibits, prevents, lessens or delays the progression of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or it may not. In either event, the VEGF antagonist would have been administered for the purpose of treating the eye disorder. In other words, the method of treating the patient with the eye disorder is performed upon administration of the VEGF antagonist to the patient for the purpose of achieving an improvement or beneficial effect in the eye disorder, regardless whether the dosage amount administered actually achieves that intended result. Id. at 21–22 (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Board found that: Patent Owner proposes that the claims require not only achieving a therapeutically effective result, but more specifically, achieving a “high level of efficacy that was noninferior to the standard of care by the time the patent was filed in 2011.” In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner describes a “highly effective treatment for angiogenic eye disorders” as “one that is on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin and can produce visual acuity gains, not just slow vision losses.” The Specification refers to “a high level of efficacy” in one instance, i.e., in the “Background” section. The Specification does not describe there, or elsewhere that “treating,” in the context of the claims or in the art, requires achieving a “high level of efficacy” or providing results “on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin.” Id. at 22 (citations omitted). We adopt the same reasoning here, and find that, for the purposes of this Decision, the evidence of record and the Specification support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to such patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. We consequently reject” slip op. at 35

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

    “The terms “initial dose,” “secondary doses,” and “tertiary doses,” refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist Thus, the “initial dose” is the dose which is administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen (also referred to as the “baseline dose”) ; the “secondary doses” are the doses which are administered after the initial dose; and the “tertiary doses” are the doses which are administered after the secondary doses. The initial, secondary, and tertiary doses may all contain the same amount of dosing regimens, but will generally differ from one another in terms of frequency of administration. Ex. 1001, col. 3 ll. 34–44. Petitioner also notes that the Specification further explains that “the immediately preceding dose” means “in a sequence of multiple administrations, the dose of VEGF antagonist which is administered to a patient prior to the administration of the very next dose in the sequence with no intervening doses.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 54–59; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–45). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “As Petitioner states, Patent Owner relies upon these Exhibits as objective secondary evidence of non-obviousness. See, e.g., PO Resp. 65– 69. However, and as we explain below, because we find that the challenged claims are anticipated by Dixon, we do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments that the claims are non-obvious (Grounds 4–6) or its contentions regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness. See Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that “secondary considerations are not an element of a claim of anticipation”). Consequently, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the Financial Documents as moot.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2022-01225 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Here, the claims are directed to methods of administering, i.e., using, a VEGF antagonist for an intended purpose of “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” The Specification repeatedly characterizes the method as one for treating angiogenic eye disorders in patients. Apart from the preamble, the independent claims do not elsewhere recite or indicate any other use for the method steps comprising the administration of a VEGF antagonist. Thus, we determine that the preamble sets forth the essence of the invention—treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. Additionally, we find that the preamble provides antecedent basis for claim terms “the patient” recited in the body of each independent claim, and “angiogenic eye disorders” recited in dependent claims 6, 7, 18, and 20. Indeed, without the preamble, it would be unclear to whom the doses of VEGF are administered. Thus, …in view of the evidence of record, namely, the claim language and the written description of the ’338 patent, we find that the preambles of method claims 1 and 14 are limiting insofar as they require “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” Id. at 17–18 (citations omitted). We adopt this same reasoning here and find that the preamble of claim 1 reciting “[a] method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” is limiting.” slip op. at 34

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

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44.” slip op. at 37

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

    “If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, the next step in the Praxair analysis is to determine whether the printed matter is functionally related to its “substrate.” Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032. Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight. Id. (citing DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850). However, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id. (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). More specifically, printed matter is functionally related to its substrate when the language changes not mere thoughts or outcomes, but provides action steps that the method requires. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the test for printed matter is whether it “merely informs people of the claimed information, or whether it instead interacts with the other elements of the claim to … cause a specific action in a claimed process.”); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that language “is only a statement of purpose and intended result” where its “expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 46

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field. Pet. 28. Petitioner asserts that such a person would typically have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D. (or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders, including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1020), we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Ak Meeting IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01142 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 8 are anticipated by and obvious over Roy; claims 1–14 are obvious over Simonoff and Naef; and the listed claims are anticipated by and obvious over Chang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have been a person having, as of the priority date of the ’124 Patent: (1) at least an undergraduate degree in computer science or closely-related field, or similar advanced post-graduate education; and (2) 1–2 years of experience related to multi-user collaboration software. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30).10 Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response, but Patent Owner previously stated in its Preliminary Response that it “adopt[s] Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’124 Patent as well as the asserted prior art.” See generally Resp.; Prelim. Resp. 5. We accept Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’124 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We conclude, in agreement with Petitioner, that Mr. Landers is not evidenced to have ordinary skill in the art, as such has been defined above in Section II.B of this Decision, because he appears to have neither the requisite education (he is not evidenced to have a degree in computer science or a closely related field) nor experience (he is not evidenced to have experience in multi-user collaboration software). See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 5–7, Attachment A; see also Hr’g Tr. 23:5–25:2 (Patent Owner, given the opportunity to identify any evidence of record supporting that Mr. Landers has ordinary skill in the art, identified none). There is no argument by Patent Owner to the contrary. For the reasons above, we give no weight to the testimony presented in the Declarations of Mr. Sunatori and Mr. Landers as to the claim construction, anticipation, and obviousness issues discussed below. D.” slip op. at 20

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” 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)). Petitioner states, “no construction is necessary, as the claims are obvious under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 7. This statement aligns with the testimony of Dr. Terveen. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24 (“Counsel has not instructed me to apply a construction of the claims notwithstanding their ordinary meaning. Therefore, I have applied the meaning of the claim terms of the Challenged Claims that is generally consistent with their ordinary and customary meaning, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood them in the context of the ’124 Patent at the time of the alleged invention.”). Moreover, Petitioner again stated at the final hearing that, “there are no claim construction disputes, at least none explicitly.” Hr’g Tr. 11:21–24. Similarly, Patent Owner states that “[n]o formal claim constructions are necessary because ‘claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Resp. 4 (quoting Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Therefore, we also do not expressly construe any claim language. slip op. at 21

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

    “Based on the evidence of record, we find that the annotated Roy Figure 4B, above, shows how Roy teaches: (1) user input at a client computer, the user input representing content to be shared, such as game plays, and generating messages defining that content, (2) the content being sent to a server, (3) and the server then outputting related messages to all the networked client computers (including the originating computer) so that (4) shared content (e.g., the game play) is displayed over common content (e.g., a game field) at all networked computers (including the originating computer). The above cited portions of Roy, as explained by Dr. Terveen, disclose a central server architecture for the networking of, and sharing common and user-generated content amongst, client computers, and the inherent latency involved in transmission of messages over such an architecture. See Pet. 10–23; Ex. 1001, 1:60–67, 47:44–48, 49:2–7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–60; Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:26–48, 1:53–56, 2:1–6, 3:16–56, 3:66–4:1, 4:6–29, 4:44–54, 5:17–6:14, 7:50–52, Figs. 1, 4B, 5A, 5B; Ex. 1020; Ex. 1021. Moreover, to the extent any claim element is not expressly disclosed in Roy, Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that displaying shared content over common content on networked computers, where users are collaborating or playing a game, where changes are made to the common view efficiently so that only changes are messaged as rendering commands rather than re-rendering the entire “game world” would provide the benefit of preserving bandwidth consumption. Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 58.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 10,963,124 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,963,124
• Metrasens, Inc. / Metrasens, Ltd. v. Keith A. KoppAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2023 · IPR2022-01224 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Votruba, Jaquet, Finn, and Seton because their combination teaches the claimed MRI protection arrangement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not offer an alternate definition and agrees that Petitioner’s definition is reasonable. Patent Owner suggests that “one equivalent to an electrical engineering degree would be a degree in physics.” PO Resp. 2. The level of skill in the art is a reference point for gauging what would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner, however, does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would meaningfully alter the Petition’s assertions of obviousness. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art encompassing an electrical engineering degree or a physics degree with several years of experience in magnetic sensors and MRI. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner, but there would be no difference in the outcome of this Decision if we were to substitute a physicist for an electrical engineer as suggested by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 8

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

    “According to the specification of the ’128 patent, “the residual magnetic field [is the field] that exists in the vicinity of an MRI apparatus.” Ex. 1001, 2:55–57. The residual lines of magnetic force of the magnet in the MRI apparatus pass through the access opening 14 generally normal to the scan of the Hall effect sensors. The passive sensors in the series 11 and 13 are sensitive to the magnetic force lines along one axis and produce a signal related to magnetic field strength. As a ferrous object (not shown) approaches the access doorway 12, the residual magnetic field is disrupted. Id. 3:23–30. “The potential dangers associated with MRI machines include the presence, within the apparatus and surrounding area, of a strong magnetic field.” Id. 1:42–44. According to the ’128 patent, “[u]sually, the MRI device is located within a shielded room for improved results and also to lessen the impact of the device on surrounding operations.” Id. 1:54–56. Based on these disclosures in the ’128 patent, we determine that the term “residual magnetic field” refers to the magnetic field that radiates outwardly from the MRI apparatus. This is substantially similar to Petitioner’s construction which acknowledges a “non-uniform magnetic field of the MRI apparatus passing through the open doorway.” Pet. 11. In order for the residual field to pass through an open doorway it would need to radiate outwardly from the MRI apparatus. The result in this Decision, however, would be the same even if we were to accept Patent Owner’s proposed modifications to the meaning of “residual magnetic field.”” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the parties’ contentions with respect to the “array of passive magnetic field sensors” and agree with Patent Owner that evidence in the prosecution history leading to the ’128 patent does not persuade us that all gradiometers are disavowed. Rather the prosecution history suggests that the gradiometers of Jaquet that are tuned to using the uniform magnetic field of the earth are not able to deal with the non-uniform magnetic field associated with an MRI. Based on the disclosures in the ’128 patent (Ex. 1001) and prosecution history (Ex. 1002) we find that one of ordinary skill would understand the term “array of passive magnetic field sensors” to exclude the gradiometers taught by Jaquet, but would include other gradiometers, including those based on Hall effect sensors.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “record, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Votruba, Jaquet, Finn, and Seton renders the device of claim 1 obvious. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that “a POSA would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success . . . to have used the arrangement of passive magnetic sensors as taught by Jaquet in an opening of an MRI room as taught by Votruba (i.e., the array of sensors per Jaquet for the two sensors in Votruba).” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). Therefore, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’128 patent is unpatentable as obvious over Votruba, Jaquet, Finn, and Seton.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 7,489,128 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,489,128

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.