• Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8

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

    “on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,333,007
• Kia Corp. / Toyota Motor Corp. v. Emerging Automotive LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00981 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable over the Kleve-based grounds; the Board found the Zaid-based grounds did not render their challenged claims unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Pet. 2. Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). Petitioner filed an authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed an authorized Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 9, “Prelim. Sur-reply”). Trial was instituted on the asserted grounds of unpatentability. Paper 10 (“Inst. Dec.”), 56.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Petitioner contends express claim construction is unnecessary and states that all terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Response. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” 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)). There are no claim terms in controversy that need be construed for our analysis.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Here, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “had at least a four-year undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, automotive engineering, or [a] closely related field and [at] least two years of experience in the field of access control systems, vehicle electronics, and/or cryptography.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–82). Dr. Almeroth supports Petitioner’s position and further testifies that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Patent Owner does not assert a different level of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention and appears to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. See PO Resp. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Malek, explicitly adopts Petitioner’s level of skill in the art but states that his opinions would be applicable under any reasonable definition for an ordinarily skilled artisan at the critical time. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 37. For the purposes of this Decision, we too adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’188 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, we credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, who opines that Kleve discloses that certain restrictions are sent with the request to generate a virtual key. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118–123. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Kleve discloses that the virtual key “enable[s] the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” Id. According to Dr. Almeroth, this “indicates that rental agreement restrictions were sent with the request so that the virtual key could be associated with said restrictions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“Once the rental period has expired the virtual key may be reset and cleared from the VCS.”)). Dr. Almeroth further testifies that the virtual key in Kleve is always generated after the rental agreement. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39 (“[O]nce the Temporary User selects the vehicle, pays the appropriate amount and signs a consent agreement, th[e]n the system may generate a virtual key to distribute to the Temporary User and VCS.”), 68). We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Almeroth’s declaration testimony contradicts Kleve. See PO Resp. 27–29. Rather, as discussed previously, we find that Kleve’s vehicle owner can set a restriction, such as the rental start period, prior to step 214 in Kleve’s Figure 2 and that such restrictions can be associated with the e-key. We also do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that (1) Dr. Almeroth’s declaration testimony contradicts his deposition testimony or that (2) Dr. Almeroth “admitted his testimony was wrong.” See PO Sur-Reply 7 (citing Ex. 2030, 27:5–10, 27:21–28:1). In a particular embodiment to which Dr. Almeroth was citing, he noted that the e-key is always generated after the rental agreement. See Ex. 2030, 26:14–20. Then the following exchange occurs: Q. So you use typically and always. So always does not refer to all of the embodiments of Kleve, is that fair? A. I think a person of skill in the art could read Kleve and understand that there are probably multiple ways in which the flow of actions among the parties could occur. And I think thinking about a real world scenario, in most cases you have an agreement before you would generate an eKey, but maybe, maybe not. I don’t -- I don't know that the real world is necessarily cut and dry. So reading -- a person reading Kleve would understand it’s describing embodiments where it’s always the case. That might be a pretty common scenario, but I don't know that it would necessarily be a hard and fast rule in every embodiment or in the understanding a person of skill in the art would have. Id. at 28:3–20. There is nothing in the deposition testimony by Dr. Almeroth that appears inconsistent with his declaration testimony nor does there appear to be the kind of admission touted by Patent Owner. Instead, it is Dr. Malek who takes an overly narrow view of Kleve that appears inconsistent with Kleve’s disclosure when read as a whole. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56–57. Therefore, we do not credit or agree with Dr. Malek’s testimony that Kleve teaches away from the concept of a virtual key created with the agreed-upon rental period as a restriction. See id. ¶ 57.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,365,188 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,365,188
• Texas Instruments Incorprated v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00934 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMaw and, separately, over Macnally.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,496,342 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,496,342
• Toyota Motor Corp. v. Emerging Automotive LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00814 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Rector, Kleve, and, for certain claims, additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “POSA”) at the time of the invention of the ’244 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or closely related field, with at least two-to-four years’ experience in cloud services for settings customization” and that computer science, or equivalent) could substitute for professional experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 89). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See, generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Malek, adopts the definition proffered by Petitioner and its Declarant, Dr. Almeroth. Ex. 2001 ¶ 37. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as it is reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that the term “transferring is configured to instruct” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning – the limitation.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner contends that the challenged claims require more than that the server is capable of the recited transferring (e.g., claims 1 and 17), and must be configured to accomplish the specific purpose of the claims. Id. at 12–17. Our analysis and the outcome of this dispute, however, would not change even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s construction. Therefore, upon review of the entire record, including arguments by the parties and the relied upon evidence, we determine no terms require express construction to reach our decision. 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 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “With regard to this testimony, we note that Dr. Malek does not provide an underlying basis for these statements to support his conclusion that it is “common knowledge” that distributed software systems are less secure than local software systems. Id. In fact, when viewed with Kleve, Dr. Malek’s testimony appears to contradict Kleve’s express teaching that the “system may be further extended to facilitate the virtual key with additional security by requiring remote credential verification at the vehicle . . . by the VCS, using a server, or allowing the Owner to verify the Temporary User’s request.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 49 (emphases added). With regard to Kleve’s disclosure, Dr. Malek further testifies that [a] POSITA would understand that in Kleve credential authorization can be performed by: (1) VCS, (2) server, or (3) owner . . . . While Kleve discloses the verification can be performed by any of these entities, it states the client-side verification at the vehicle using VCS provides additional security. A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify side verification. Rector already uses the more secure client-side verification. Ex. 2003 ¶ 79 (emphases added). Dr. Malek, however, does not explain how Kleve’s express teachings limit “additional security” to client-side verification with VCS. Id. In fact, Kleve expressly discloses the opposite. Kleve teaches that the additional security may be provided by a remote credential certification that “may be done by the VCS, using a server, or allowing the Owner to verify the Temporary User’s request.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Kleve further teaches that the Temporary User may enter “a credential verification password at the vehicles touchscreen visual display while having the VCS, server, or owner compare and verify authorization.” Id. (emphasis added). Even Dr. Malek acknowledges that the verification can be performed by “any of these entities,” including the server. Id. We further note Dr. Almeroth testifies that “[t]he server-side verification may be done above and beyond any verification that takes place locally. The server-side verification could also be done as a check on local verification.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 122. This testimony is consistent with and supported by Kleve’s disclosure, which expressly states that “additional security” includes remote credential verification at the vehicle using a server. Ex. 1007 ¶ 49. As such, we credit Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as his testimony better supported by prior art disclosure.” slip op. at 28

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

    “With regard to this testimony, we note that Dr. Malek does not provide an underlying basis for these statements to support his conclusion that it is “common knowledge” that distributed software systems are less secure than local software systems. Id. In fact, when viewed with Kleve, Dr. Malek’s testimony appears to contradict Kleve’s express teaching that the “system may be further extended to facilitate the virtual key with additional security by requiring remote credential verification at the vehicle . . . by the VCS, using a server, or allowing the Owner to verify the Temporary User’s request.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 49 (emphases added). With regard to Kleve’s disclosure, Dr. Malek further testifies that [a] POSITA would understand that in Kleve credential authorization can be performed by: (1) VCS, (2) server, or (3) owner . . . . While Kleve discloses the verification can be performed by any of these entities, it states the client-side verification at the vehicle using VCS provides additional security. A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify side verification. Rector already uses the more secure client-side verification. Ex. 2003 ¶ 79 (emphases added). Dr. Malek, however, does not explain how Kleve’s express teachings limit “additional security” to client-side verification with VCS. Id. In fact, Kleve expressly discloses the opposite. Kleve teaches that the additional security may be provided by a remote credential certification that “may be done by the VCS, using a server, or allowing the Owner to verify the Temporary User’s request.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Kleve further teaches that the Temporary User may enter “a credential verification password at the vehicles touchscreen visual display while having the VCS, server, or owner compare and verify authorization.” Id. (emphasis added). Even Dr. Malek acknowledges that the verification can be performed by “any of these entities,” including the server. Id. We further note Dr. Almeroth testifies that “[t]he server-side verification may be done above and beyond any verification that takes place locally. The server-side verification could also be done as a check on local verification.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 122. This testimony is consistent with and supported by Kleve’s disclosure, which expressly states that “additional security” includes remote credential verification at the vehicle using a server. Ex. 1007 ¶ 49. As such, we credit Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as his testimony better supported by prior art disclosure.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 11,396,244 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,396,244
• Exotec Product France SAS / Exotec North America Inc. et al. v. Opex CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00850 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, and 23–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Raizer and Hangzhou.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9

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

    “C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes an express construction” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In this case, we must determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hangzhou’s disclosure of driving its auto-guided trolleys 200 under shelves 100 would improve the operation of Raizer’s system in the same way. For us to resolve this question in Petitioner’s favor, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). However, bodily incorporation, i.e., “an actual physical substitution of” Hangzhou’s auto-guided trolleys or operating software into Raizer’s system, is not required. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,472,632 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,472,632
• Apple Inc. v. Paul PoniatowskiAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00731 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Wang, Dua, and Yong.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with one to two years of experience in the field of mobile transactions.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–37). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 2 US Patent App. Pub. No. US 2002/0023215 A1 (Ex. 1004). 3 US Patent App. Pub. No. US 2006/0165060 A1 (Ex. 1005). 4 Korean Unexamined Patent App. Pub. No. 10-2007-0063899 (Ex. 1006). Petitioner submits Yong’s Korean-language patent application and a certified translation of the same. See id. We refer to the English-language translation of Yong. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, as it is supported by Dr. Bederson’s testimony and appears consistent with the ’578 patent and the asserted prior art. 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)); Ex. 1003 ¶ 36.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “We agree with Petitioner that nothing in the claim language or the Specification requires that the claimed optical input receive information concerning the prices of goods directly from the goods themselves. Patent Owner does not explicitly address the claim construction of this term. See PO Resp. Patent Owner, however, does assert that “it would be logical for those skilled in [the] art to apply any available technology to further modify and improve the shopping experience by taking a scan/pic of the products bar codes, instead of entering them manually.” Id. at 2–3. This assertion is not inconsistent with a finding that the scanned bar code information may be received indirectly. Accordingly, on this record, we construe the term “receiving information concerning the prices of goods” to encompass receiving pricing information from a server.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the Priority Applications do not disclose the optical input and network hub limitations or their equivalent. As Petitioner argues, “disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) (“It is not sufficient…that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose”). Reply 4. Accordingly, for the purposes of determining eligible prior art for this Decision, we rely on the ’578 patent’s application filing date of October 19, 2009.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner arguments that the cited references are analogous art. Our reviewing court has stated that “[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotes omitted). While these two criteria are helpful in many instances, we must not lose sight of the key question at hand: what is “prior art” as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)? References that are “too remote to be treated as ‘prior art’” are excluded from the obviousness analysis. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741, 226 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The non-analogous art test provides helpful insight on the underlying question of what is “prior art” within the meaning of the statute; we should not, however, be blind to the reality of the circumstances of the case before us. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA (1979). Nor should we adhere to rigid and mandatory formulas that overly limit the inquiry. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Focusing on the first of the two tests above, the test for analogous art “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. We thus consider all explanations of the inventors’ subject matter while keeping in mind that prior art is analogous when it “is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed. . . .” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1320 (emphasis added). Thus, “field of endeavor” should not be defined narrowly based only upon the specific problem addressed.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,270,578 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,270,578
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Chien-Min SungAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00533 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1, 3–8 over Chou and Sung ’479; claims 6–7 also over SungECS; and claim 2 over Goers.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We secondly conclude a POSITA would have had at least two years of experience designing and/or developing CMP technology per Patent Owner’s formulation, but we reject Patent Owner’s additional contention that this experience must include designing and/or developing pad dressers specifically. The ’270 patent claims are directed to the structure of a pad dresser, not to a method of making a pad dresser. See Ex. 1001, 17:35– 18:38. According to the ’270 patent specification, the claimed pad dresser structure is designed to condition a polishing pad so the pad may be used to attain “high performance levels in aspects such as uniformity of polished wafer, smoothness of the IC circuitry, removal rate for productivity, longevity of consumables for CMP economics, etc.” during a CMP process. Id. at 1:20–24 (Background of the Invention). Thus, the ’270 patent’s invention generally focuses on optimizing a pad dresser structure to achieve desired results in a CMP process, not necessarily on how to manufacture a pad dresser. As such, we reject Petitioner’s POSITA formulation requiring “experience in the field of integrated circuit processing and fabrication techniques” (Pet. 19) as too generic in the context of the ’270 patent’s claimed invention. We also conclude, in view of the ’270 patent disclosures discussed above, that Dr. Tsai’s opinion that ordinary skill requires experience with manufacturing pad dressers (see Ex. 2011 ¶ 28) is too conclusory and lacking in evidentiary support to be persuasive. See Best Med. v. Elekta, 46 F.4th at 1353 (“The patent’s purpose can also be informative.”).” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “The Federal Circuit has held: “To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case — like for claim construction, validity, or infringement — a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.”9 Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Commission, 22 F.4th 1369, 1375–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., 116 F.4th 1335, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (holding that the proffered expert does not need to have acquired the 9 Petitioner cites the Practice Guide’s statements that there is “no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field” and “[a] person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’” Practice Guide 34 (citing SEB v. Montgomery Ward, 594 F.3d at 1373; Sundance v. DeMonte, 550 F.3d at 1363–64). To the extent there is any tension between the Practice Guide (issued in 2019) and the Kyocera holding (issued in 2022), we apply the latter here.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine Dr. Shanfield has sufficient education and experience to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’270 patent. Dr. Shanfield’s Ph.D. in physics satisfies the educational prerequisite of at least a bachelor’s degree in an engineering related field such as physics. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 2, App. A. Furthermore, his advanced degree (Ph.D. in physics) versus ordinary skill (a bachelor’s degree in an engineering related field) provides considerable leeway when turning to the experiential component for ordinary skill. Nonetheless, Dr. Shanfield also has at least two years of experience with designing and developing CMP technology per the experience prerequisite, as follows. Dr. Shanfield worked at Raytheon Corporation for over 10 years, during which he “worked directly with engineers in the selection, installation, and optimization of several chemo-mechanical polishing systems (CMP), including analysis of operational maintenance and performance monitoring,” and he “directly participated in establishing the required metrology (optical thickness monitoring) for maintaining polishing uniformity standards.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 3 (emphasis added). He later joined Draper Laboratory in 2003, where he currently is the Division Leader of Advanced Hardware Development. See id. ¶ 5. During Dr. Shanfield’s time at Draper, the laboratory “acquired several semiconductor-grade CMP systems for the purpose of fabricating multi-chip modules and for planarization operations in MEMS devices,” and he was “involved in their operation and optimization.” Id. (emphasis added). When asked during a deposition whether he is “an expert in CMP equipment design,” Dr. Shanfield stated he is “very familiar with the design of CMP equipment” because he has “seen many systems” and “installed or supervised the installation of systems.” Ex. 2003, 17:22–19:3. He testified he has “designed apparatus that worked with CMP equipment” although he has not “designed the CMP equipment itself.” Id. at 18:13–19. As an example of being “involved in the manufacture of CMP pad dressers” specifically, Dr. Shanfield stated that during his time at Raytheon, he worked with other professionals “to use the CMP system to process MEMS, M-E-M-S, devices” which “needed a certain kind of planarization process [that] required constant conditioning,” so the team “had to try to fabricate something that would provide conditioning that would last longer.” Id. at 19:4–20:9. Thus, we conclude Dr. Shanfield qualifies as a POSITA pertaining to” slip op. at 13

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

    “apply the same claim construction standard “used in the federal courts, in other words, the claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b),” which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). Under the Phillips standard, the “words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Petitioner proposes constructions for terms: “superabrasive,” “protrusion,” “sharp portion,” and “attitude.” Pet. 20–21. Patent Owner does not propose constructions for any claim term. See generally, PO Resp. We discern constructions of these claim phrases or others are not required for the purposes of this Decision. 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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,974,270 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,974,270
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Chien-Min SungSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00535 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 12–21 are unpatentable over the asserted grounds; claims 10 and 11 were not shown unpatentable because Tsai and Sung ’026 did not establish the required number of working particles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Shanfield’s Testimony ..................................................... 9 1. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Pertaining to the ’802 Patent .................................................................................... 9 2. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Shanfield’s” slip op. at 2

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Shanfield’s Testimony ..................................................... 9” slip op. at 2

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

    “16–18 being obvious over Tsai and Sung ’026 as our own in this Decision. See Pet. 56–62, 70–75. We accordingly conclude a preponderance of the evidence presented here establishes the unpatentability of these claims. Patent Owner has waived any opposition other than his filing date priority arguments discussed above. See Inst. Dec. 78; Paper 15, 10.” slip op. at 106

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “concluded: “It is not clear to us, and Dr. Shanfield does not explain persuasively, how Tsai’s disclosure that its ODD has more cutters (i.e., working particles per claim 9) than the conventional BDD leads to his conclusion that all of the diamond particles in the ODD are cutters.” Inst. Dec. 76 (emphasis added). Patent Owner urges us to maintain that conclusion, for various reasons, including testimony from Dr. Tsai. See PO Resp. 49–52; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 43–47. Patent Owner also reiterates his opposition to Dr. Shanfield’s “extrapolation” from Tsai’s Figures to reach a conclusion as to the total number of diamond grits in the Tsai ODD, including the “working” particles of claims 8, 9, and 12. See id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 186–189).” slip op. at 108

  Patent outcomesUS 9,724,802 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,724,802
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Chien-Min SungAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00534 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–6, 9–12, and 20 are anticipated by or obvious over Sung ’026; claims 5–10 and 13–19 are obvious over the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We secondly conclude a POSITA would have had at least two years of experience designing and/or developing CMP technology per Patent Owner’s formulation, but we reject Patent Owner’s additional contention that this experience must include designing and/or developing pad dressers” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In his deposition testimony, Dr. Tsai testifies that the Sung ’026 patent application publication “intends to make a diamond disk that has all the protrusion[s] with identical heights and with the same orientation.” Ex. 1049, 50:2–4. Dr. Tsai also testified that “[i]n addition, [Sung ’026] also intends to control the depths of penetrating into the pad. For example, if I want to penetrate 10 micron into the pad, then the protrusion height should be at least 10 micron.” Id. at 50:10–13. So, contrary to Dr. Tsai’s Declaration testimony in Ex. 2011 ¶ 69, Dr. Tsai clarifies in his deposition testimony that Sung ’026 intends to combine three distinct aspects or embodiments. He testifies that “first one is that you need to have the same orientation, same shape so you can have the consistency; and No. 2, you would like to have the same height; and No. 3, you would like to control the penetration depths.” Ex. 1049, 51:2–6. Dr. Tsai was then asked “[s]o Sung ’026 is trying to combine all three of those together, correct?” Id. at 51:9– 10. His answer was “[t]hat’s correct, because if you can have a very good control of those, then -- and that time period back then, then you can make a very perfect diamond disk.” Id. at 51:11–13. Based on the evidence as discussed above, we determine that Sung ’026 discloses the elements and limitations in clause 1[C]. In particular, we credit Dr. Shanfield’s testimony (as summarized above) over Dr. Tsai’s declaration testimony, because Dr. Tsai’s deposition testimony essentially agreed with Dr. Shanfield that Sung ’026 discloses all the aspects recited in claim 1 together in a single embodiment.” slip op. at 48

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Moreover, our general approach for considering challenges to the admissibility of evidence was outlined in Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00053, Paper 66 at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014). As stated in Corning, similar to a district court in a bench trial, the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented. Id. (citing Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (stating, in the context of reviewing an administrative determination of the National Labor Relations Board based on findings by a Trial Examiner, “We think that experience has demonstrated that in a trial or hearing where no jury is present, more time is ordinarily lost in listening to arguments as to the admissibility of evidence and in considering offers of proof than would be consumed in taking the evidence proffered . . . One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received . . . .”)). Moreover, “there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB February 24, 2014). Rather than excluding evidence that is allegedly hearsay, confusing, misleading, untimely, and/or irrelevant, we will simply not rely on it or give it little or no probative weight, as appropriate, in our analysis. “In an inter partes review, we regard it as the better course to have a complete record of the evidence to facilitate public access, as well as appellate review.” Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC v. Game Controller Tech. LLC, IPR2013-00634, Paper 32 at 31 (PTAB Apr. 14, 2015); see also Gnosis S.p.A. v. S. Alabama Med. Sci. Found., IPR2013-00118, Paper 64 at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014) (citing Donnelly, 123 F.2d at 224 (“If the record on review contains not only all evidence which was clearly admissible, but also all evidence of doubtful admissibility, the court which is called upon to review the case can usually make an end of it, whereas if evidence was excluded which that court regards as having been admissible, a new trial or rehearing cannot be avoided.”)).” slip op. at 32

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

    “According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s argument is that “several distinct portions of Sung ’026 purportedly, when viewed together, disclose an embodiment that satisfies the recitation of Claim Limitation [1C].” Id. at 20. Patent Owner asserts, however, that “these individual embodiments of Sung ’026—which it describes in separate portions of the reference as discrete ‘aspects’ of the invention of Sung ’026—cannot not be used collectively to satisfy the anticipation standard.” Id. (citing Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371). Simply put, it is Patent Owner’s position that because Sung ’026 fails to disclose these various aspects in a single embodiment as Claim Limitation [1C] recites, Sung ’026 cannot anticipate claim 1. It is Petitioner’s position that Dr. Tsai’s deposition testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions that Sung ’026 anticipates independent claim 1 because the various alleged “individual embodiments” are part of a unified whole that overcome the circumstances discussed in Net MoneyIN. In his deposition testimony, Dr. Tsai testifies that the Sung ’026 patent application publication “intends to make a diamond disk that has all the protrusion[s] with identical heights and with the same orientation.” Ex. 1049, 50:2–4. Dr. Tsai also testified that “[i]n addition, [Sung ’026] also intends to control the depths of penetrating into the pad. For example, if I want to penetrate 10 micron into the pad, then the protrusion height should be at least 10 micron.” Id. at 50:10–13. So, contrary to Dr. Tsai’s Declaration testimony in Ex. 2011 ¶ 69, Dr. Tsai clarifies in his deposition testimony that Sung ’026 intends to combine three distinct aspects or embodiments. He testifies that “first one is that you need to have the same orientation, same shape so you can have the consistency; and No. 2, you would like to have the same height; and No. 3, you would like to control the penetration depths.” Ex. 1049, 51:2–6. Dr. Tsai was then asked “[s]o Sung ’026 is trying to combine all three of those together, correct?” Id. at 51:9– 10. His answer was “[t]hat’s correct, because if you can have a very good control of those, then -- and that time period back then, then you can make a very perfect diamond disk.” Id. at 51:11–13. Based on the evidence as discussed above, we determine that Sung ’026 discloses the elements and limitations in clause 1[C]. In particular, we credit Dr. Shanfield’s testimony (as summarized above) over Dr. Tsai’s declaration testimony, because Dr. Tsai’s deposition testimony essentially agreed with Dr. Shanfield that Sung ’026 discloses all the aspects recited in claim 1 together in a single embodiment.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 9,138,862 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,138,862
• United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00779 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed combinations of Curry, Rabu, and Katayama, with additional references for certain claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). slip op. at 9

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

    “Based on the evidence of record and Petitioner’s arguments, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–27 of the ’878 patent are unpatentable. In summary,” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 10,198,878 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,198,878

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.