• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2026 · PGR2025-00013 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 and 18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted prior art did not establish the claimed quick-connect system during reciprocation, and Clark was not analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art 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 prior art may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id.” slip op. at 8

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

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 1[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick-connect system is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that many different types of connectors, whether they require alignment or not, were known. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick-connect system, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick-connect system configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick-connect system” recited in independent claims 1 and 18.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes: Quick-connect system 600 includes a piston 602 that has a hollow-end bore 608 for receiving the shaft 621 of a massaging head 620. Located within the bore 608 of piston 602 is a cylindrical seat 604. Cylindrical seat 604 retains a magnet 606. Magnet 606 is illustrated with its north pole located flush with the seat and facing toward the opening in bore 608. Massaging head 620 includes a shaft 621 having a cylindrical pocket 622 at the distal end. Located within the cylindrical pocket 622 is a magnet 624. Magnet 624 is positioned so that its south pole is located at the distal end of shaft 621. Accordingly, when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place. Ex. 1001, 6:57–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the bore and the seat located within the bore are “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the bore and the seat within the bore are “substantially cylindrical” when the massaging head and magnet are respectively received therein so that the magnet in the seat and the magnet in the pocket of the massaging head can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the bore and the seat within the bore were “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in claims 13–16 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shapes of the bore and the structure within the bore. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of claims 13–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,938,082 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,938,082
• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2026 · PGR2024-00053 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 34–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 unpatentable under § 112(a), § 112(b), or any asserted § 103 ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ proffered definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art differ in the details of the experience a POSITA would possess. Petitioner’s definition requires experience with rotating or reciprocating mechanisms, whereas Patent Owner’s definition requires experience with devices for human use and interaction. These differences, however, do not affect our analysis of the issues in this case. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 34[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick release connector is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that a POSITA would be able to recognize a quick release connector for a particular application. According to Dr. Pratt, A person of ordinary skill in the art would consider a number of factors, depending on the context and specific application of the connector, to determine whether a connector provides a “quick release.” Such factors could include whether the connector is designed to manually and easily connect and disconnect two objects, and whether tools are necessary to do so. Other factors to be considered may be based on the specific application or operating environment. Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick release connector, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick release connector configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick release connector . . . configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates a predetermined stroke length at the first speed” recited in claim element 34[e]. 4. Conclusion for Written Description For the reasons set forth above in sections II.C.1–3, Petitioner has not persuaded us that any aspect of claim element 34[e] lacks written description support. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as any of claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes that quick-connect system 600 includes two magnets with opposite poles facing each other: magnet 606 in the distal end of piston 602 and magnet 624 located in cylindrical pocket 622 of massaging head 620. Ex. 1001, 6:57–67, Figs. 6, 6A. The Specification further describes that “when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place.” Id. at 6:67–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the pocket is “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the pocket is “substantially cylindrical” when the pocket receives a magnet therein so that the magnets can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the pocket was “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in independent claim 34 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shape of the pocket. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,857,482 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,857,482
• CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · PGR2021-00054 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Remand

  Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable because Sample C was not proven publicly available as prior art, and the original decision found the remaining grounds insufficient.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s evidence in Kuntz (Ex. 1026), the Annual Report (Ex. 1028), Masuko (Ex. 1029), and Pfaff (Ex. 1034) is insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public before the effective filing date of the ’861 patent. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26. Kuntz, the Annual Report, Masuko, and Pfaff may support a finding that the Xirallic® line of products was available to the public, but these documents do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public. We also agree with Patent Owner that the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010), Certificates of Analysis (Exs. 1011–1017), and Material Safety Data Sheet (Ex. 1025) are insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26–27. Regardless of how the Technical Data Sheets were used in the Opposition against the European counterpart of the ’861 patent (Exs. 1040, 1041) and during the prosecution of the application from which the ’861 patent issued (Ex. 1003, 102–104), the Technical Data Sheets do not refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Moreover, as noted by Patent Owner, the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010) indicate that they are “preliminary” and Petitioner has not provided any evidence that the Technical Data Sheets were ever issued to the public, as opposed to just issued internally. See PO Resp. 18–19. We also find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the Technical Data Sheets are preliminary because other, later-dated technical data sheets (Exs. 2012, 2013) lack the “preliminary” label and list characteristics that are different from those in Exhibits 1005–1010. See PO Resp. 19 (comparing, e.g., Ex. 1009 and Ex. 2013; Ex. 1005 and Ex. 2012). The Technical Data Sheets may support a finding that the Xirallic® products they describe existed as of the dates on the documents, but they do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “witnesses. See Elbit Systems of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., 620 F. App’x 916, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856 (1982)). We have reviewed the witness testimony in the record and, more particularly, Mr. Choi’s deposition answers regarding Petitioner’s purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C came. We find that Mr. Choi’s responses cast doubt on the credibility of his declaration testimony, namely with regard to the public availability of Sample C. Mr. Choi represented that he was involved in the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Ex. 2011, 48:1–23. Mr. Choi stated that he instructed Petitioner’s marketing team manager to buy the sample from a distributor of Patent Owner’s products located in Europe. Id. at 48:24–49:4. Mr. Choi stated that he has evidence of the transaction, but refused to reveal the name of the company from which Petitioner purportedly purchased the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 49:5–50:3) and refused to produce an email in his possession that would corroborate his testimony regarding Petitioner’s acquisition of the product (id. at 50:8–16, 51:10–23). Mr. Choi represented that he does not remember how much Petitioner paid for Sample B. Id. at 56:4–5. Mr. Choi admitted that the entity from which Petitioner acquired the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken is “not currently a Merck distributor” (Ex. 2011, 50:4–7) and was not “a Merck distributor at the time” that “samples B and C were purchased” (id. at 51:25–52:2). According to Mr. Choi, the company is a “former distributor” of Patent Owner’s products. Id. at 52:3–6. Mr. Choi did not know, according to his testimony, when that unnamed entity first obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:7–10) and he stated that he did not have personal knowledge of how the entity obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:12–19). Instead, Mr. Choi assumed the entity was “able to obtain the sample through the routine course or process” the entity uses “to take samples or get samples.” Id. at 52:12–19. Mr. Choi believed the sample of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was sealed when Petitioner received it because samples from dealers are sealed, and he remembered observing that the package was from a dealer. Id. at 52:24– 54:25. However, Mr. Choi admitted that he did not obtain a technical data sheet or certificate of analysis for the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken. Id. at 59:6–11. Mr. Choi also answered questions regarding Petitioner’s purchase of Samples D and H. Ex. 2011, 62:20–66:8, 67:7–9, 73:12–13, 73:17–22. Similar to his testimony regarding Samples B and C, Mr. Choi admitted withholding an email regarding the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken. Id. at 62:20–63:9. Mr. Choi also admitted that he did not know how Akzo USA or Axalta obtained the Xirallic® the companies sold to him, and admitted that Akzo USA was not a distributor of Patent Owner’s products at the time Petitioner purchased the product. Id. at 63:10–66:8, 73:17–22. Mr. Choi also admitted that Petitioner did not pay Akzo USA for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken, and did not pay Axalta for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample H was taken. Id. at 67:7–9, 73:12–13. Although Petitioner presents declaration testimony from Mr. Choi representing that he purchased the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken in October 2011 (Ex. 1004 ¶ 16), Mr. Choi’s declaration testimony lacks corroborating evidence, and his deposition testimony does not support that the product was available to the public, as we found in our Final Written Decision. See Final Dec. 27–28. Notably, Petitioner produced corroborating evidence for Mr. Choi’s acquisition of Samples A, H, and I. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 13 (citing Ex. 1047), 18 (citing Exs. 1024, 1025). However, Mr. Choi withheld similar evidence for the Xirallic® lots from which Samples B, C, and D were taken. See Ex. 2011, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 62:20– 63:9; Final Dec. 28. As Patent Owner argues, there is “no information to determine when a contract was established, that there was consideration for the exchange, that the product was available to be delivered when the alleged transaction took place, or even when the product was delivered. Choi has no memory of what was paid for the product.” Sur-Reply 24–25; see also PO Resp. 13–14; PO Br. Rem. 2–4.” slip op. at 34

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

    “Based on the evidence discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C was available to the public. Regardless of whether a company avoids wasting shelf life of its products (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 15–16), there is no persuasive evidence in the record showing that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was released from quality control and then made available to the public by Patent Owner. Mr. Choi’s testimony shows that Petitioner obtained the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken in an atypical manner (i.e., not from Patent Owner or one of Patent Owner’s current distributors) (Ex. 2011, 49:5–50:7, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 51:25–52:6, 52:12– 19), and there is no evidence in the record to show that the lot of Xirallic® was intended for sale, rather than for experimental use only or for some other restricted use. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C qualifies as prior art against the ’861 patent, and we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’861 patent is unpatentable over the grounds relying on Sample C.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 10,647,861 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,647,861
• Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH / Dynaenergetics US, Inc. v. Qinetiq LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00003 · APJ William A Capp · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–5 not unpatentable; Petitioner failed to prove its asserted §101, §102, §103, and §112 grounds, including indefiniteness and written-description challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “prevail, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Serra testifies that he is familiar with the” slip op. at 45

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

    “process of claim 1. The first principal decision is the selection of a known liner design from a library that is made at the beginning of the design process. The second principal decision is made at the conclusion of the design process where a “final liner design” emerges after hole shapes produced by modified liners converge toward the desired hole shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read claim 1 in context, would understand that the term “optimized” in the claim refers to the hole shape of the known liner design that is selected from among the known liner designs in the library during the selection step of the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly understand that the design that is chosen in the initial selection process is “optimized” with respect to the population of known liner designs in the library as opposed to being “optimized” relative to liner designs produced during the later varying and modelling steps of the design process.” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1–5 of the ’039” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,215,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Bilski · Phillips · Markman · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,215,039
• Transgene / Bioinvent International AB v. Replimune LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2023 · PGR2022-00014 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claim 13 not unpatentable over Silvestre or Du, Choi, and Zitvogel, finding insufficient motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “or “POSITA”) “would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, or a related field, with expertise in virology (including expertise growing, isolating, and rescuing viruses), immunology, and cancer biology with at least four years of post-Ph.D. experience in those areas.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35, 96). Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. See PO Resp. 5. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition as that definition is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the 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” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “claim terms of the ’513 patent for purposes of determining whether to institute trial. For purposes of our analysis in this Final Written Decision, however, we find that it would be useful to clarify the scope of “oncolytic virus.” We agree with Petitioner that the Specification defines an “oncolytic virus” as “a virus that infects and replicates in tumor cells, such that tumor cells are killed.” Ex. 1001, 9:10–12. The Specification further clarifies that “the virus is replication competent,” and is preferably selectively replication competent in tumor tissue. Id. at 9:12–13. “A patentee is free to be his own lexicographer.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, consistent with its express definition in the Specification, to be a virus that infects and replicates in tumor cells, such that tumor cells are killed, wherein such a virus is replication competent.” slip op. at 12

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

    “but contends that “oncolytic virus” should not be construed to encompass “viral vectors” such as those disclosed in Zitvogel. PO Resp. 5. Although Petitioner does not expressly contend otherwise, we agree with Patent Owner that “oncolytic virus” would not encompass Zitvogel’s “viral vectors,” which are defined in that reference to be “replication-defective” or “replication-impaired.” Ex. 1004, 19:26–29. We do not construe any other claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner acknowledges that “while the bulk of Silvestre’s disclosure, including the working examples, is directed towards creating an oncolytic poxvirus, Silvestre discloses preparing modified oncolytic virus using other virus types, including HSV.” Pet. 44. It is undisputed, however, that Silvestre does not disclose a single embodiment of an oncolytic HSV that includes both a heterologous GM-CSF encoding gene and a heterologous CTLA-4 inhibitor encoding gene. Rather, Petitioner points to where each element could be found among broader lists of possible oncolytic virus classes, immune checkpoint targets, and therapeutic genes. Ex. 1002, 7:10– 15:49. As noted by Dr. Chiocca, if one were to randomly select any of the 11 We need not decide whether Silvestre anticipates independent claim 1, as the sole challenged claim 13 depends directly from claim 11. Thus, our determination that Petitioner has not shown that claim 11 is anticipated is sufficient to establish that Petitioner has not met its prerequisite burden for claim 13. Ex. 2009 ¶ 29. This type of picking and choosing is not anticipation. See Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,947,513 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,947,513
• Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground; the Board found the prior art failed to establish key limitations and rejected the enablement and indefiniteness challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In reply, Petitioner argues that the ’764 patent’s control system is not complex as there are no detailed algorithms, logic, or software. Pet. Reply 4. Instead, the control system merely raises or lowers power of the pumps in accordance with the demand HHP of the job design. Id. (citing Ex. 1036, 97:15–98:18, 98:21–99:25, 100:1–101:25, 102:2–7, 115:4–9, 115:24–116:4, 116:17–22; Ex. 1001, 5:2–6, 6:36–7:7, 10:4–64). According to Petitioner, this “rudimentary control concept” does not necessitate the higher skill level proposed by Patent Owner. Id. Petitioner further notes that Dr. Adnan testifies that “a mechanical engineer who has worked in the industry developing programming and control systems could fall within this definition,” and the person of ordinary skill in the art “is ‘just a specifier.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 2003 ¶ 22; Ex. 1036, 161:21–164:18). Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’764 patent’s description and Dr. Adnan’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary level of skill in the art does not require the high level of specialized knowledge of control systems suggested by Patent Owner. Moreover, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the full record, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher is unqualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to have been a fracturing operator. Patent Owner’s proposed definition does not even require experience as a fracturing operator. See PO Resp. 20–21. Furthermore, Mr. Marscher testifies that he has extensive experience developing pumps for fracturing applications. Ex. 2027, 6:24–8:7. Mr. Marscher also testifies that he has experience with control systems relating to pumps and pumps units. Id. at 212:19–23. This testimony, as well as his declaration and curriculum vitae, show that Mr. Marscher has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher’s qualifications or experience provide reason to discount the weight associated with Mr. Marscher’s testimony.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In its Reply, Petitioner argues that the maximum power output value is the pump unit’s highest HHP output and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this value is the pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72, 123–124; Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1036, 64:17–67:13, 119:17–120:11, 124:7–24, 198:9–200:9, 221:8–222:15). However, even if Petitioner is correct that the “maximum power output value” is near or equivalent to a pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty, we are still not persuaded that the term “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value,” in conflict with the definition provided in the Specification. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is indefinite. Pet. Reply 3. For the reasons discussed below (see supra § II.I.1), we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the term “maximum intermittent power,” as defined in the Specification, is indefinite. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we maintain our prior construction of “maximum intermittent power” for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

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

    “3. Additional Terms We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. 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 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,815,764 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,815,764
• Dril-Quip, Inc. v. FMC Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2022 · PGR2021-00049 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Maersk or Broussard, due to missing claim limitations and insufficient motivation to modify.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Patent Owner contends this person “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or similar subject matter, and at least approximately two years of work or research experience in subsea oil and gas completion systems related to the analysis, design, development, and/or manufacturing of equipment for subsea completion systems for use in subsea oil and gas wells.” PO Resp. 16; Ex. 2002 ¶ 11. Thus, the parties essentially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art to be applied in this proceeding. Their agreement is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’921 patent and the prior art of record. Further, we would reach the same decision regardless of whether we adopt Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s formulation. We therefore do not need to delve into any fine distinctions between the two formulations.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “However, Maersk’s other two seal barriers—a ring seal, and a production packer—both appear to be passive barriers. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 60 (annotating Ex. 1019 to identify the ring seal); Ex. 1031 ¶ 33 (stating that passive barriers “include, inter alia . . . packers”). Dr. Hilbert does not explain persuasively why adding a third passive barrier would materially improve the sealing versus Maersk’s three existing barriers, so as to justify the extensive modifications required to re-route the annular fluid through the bore stab. See Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 33–35; id. ¶¶ 13–44 (discussing some of the modifications required). Further, Mr. Parks persuasively testifies, in opposition to Dr. Hilbert’s motivation testimony, that “deeper wells and increased annulus fluid pressure would not have led a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to modify Maersk to provide additional protective barriers.” Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 58, 60–63 (emphasis added). Some of this testimony has already been cited above. Additionally, Mr. Parks notably served on the editorial committee for API 17D. See id. ¶¶ 6, 63. He testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “recognized that API 17D does not support” Dr. Hilbert’s testimony, “because API 17D’s two-barrier requirement is not dependent on depth or pressure.” Id. ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1022, 158 (§ 9.2.7)) (emphasis added). In particular: “there are practical considerations underlying the API 17D requirement for two barriers, and the lack of any specification for more than two barriers.” Id. ¶ 63. This testimony is supported by API 17D, which requires a minimum of two seal barriers for any system with a rated working pressure falling within the entire 5000–15000 psi range contemplated by API 17D. See Ex. 1022, 158 (§§ 9.2.7–9.2.8). Mr. Parks further testifies: “Two barriers, appropriately specified for” slip op. at 43

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

    “1. “production/annulus bore stab” In the Institution Decision, we determined the preamble of claim 1 (“A production/annulus bore stab”) is a limitation to the claim, which was a disputed issue at the time. See Inst. Dec. 16–20. Neither party has objected to our preliminary determination in their post-institution briefs. See, e.g., PO Resp. 15–16; Pet. Reply; Tr. 8:24–9:13. We, therefore, again conclude here that the preamble of claim 1 is a limitation to the claim, for the reasons provided in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We start our analysis with the claim language. The claim term in dispute is simply a “cylindrical” outer surface. The parties do not cite, and we do not discern, any other contextual claim language that might elucidate or limit the plain and ordinary meaning of “cylindrical.” Petitioner’s gloss on this term as connoting “an overall cylinder-like shape” is an unpersuasive attempt to broaden the meaning of the plain term “cylindrical.” It also would unhelpfully replace our present inquiry (What is a “cylindrical outer surface”?) with yet another inquiry (What is “an overall cylinder-like shape”?). Turning to the ’921 patent specification, we find that it discloses three different and distinct cylindrical outer surfaces: outermost cylindrical surface 102S, first cylindrical outer surface 102X, and second cylindrical outer surface 102Y. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6, 3:47–51, 3:65–4:5. The distinctness of these three surfaces can be seen in Figures 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Petitioner’s attempt to combine these three distinct outer cylindrical surfaces, into one allegedly cylindrical outer surface (see Petitioner’s yellow annotations to Figure 6, supra), is not supported by the ’921 patent specification, which never describes the entire axial extent of the outer surface of bore stab body 102 as being “cylindrical.”” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,689,921 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,921
• Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00006 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–7 and 9–21 not shown unpatentable over either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish motivation to select Compound (I) from Silverman’s genus.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “It is not necessary for an expert’s experience or expertise to precisely match the art at issue. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, one offering expert testimony must at least have ordinary skill in the art to provide relevant and reliable testimony that is helpful to the factfinder. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf?MURL=). Dr. Patterson has a Ph.D. in Chemistry and over 30 years of experience in drug design, drug administration, evaluation of drug effectiveness, and participated in drug design for over 20 years. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 4–10; Ex. 1008, 1–2. He is author or co-author on over eight peer-reviewed journal articles involving medicinal chemistry. Ex. 1007 ¶ 5. We find this level of skill to meet the qualifications for the level of skill in the art under the training and experience portion of the definition we have adopted for purposes of this opinion (see § II.B.), reproduced below: a Ph.D. in chemistry, pharmaceutical sciences, molecular biology, or a similar field, or an M.D. with similar background. A POSA would also have had at least several years of experience with drug design, drug development, clinical trials, or access to other individuals with that knowledge and experience. Likewise, a POSA would have had knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. We note that Dr. Patterson himself also proposes this definition. Id. ¶ 102. However, Dr. Patterson does not have “knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders” and did not opine that, in regards to his testimony, he had access to a person with that knowledge and experience, as is proposed in the definition. See generally, Ex. 1007. Accordingly, we find Dr. Patterson qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of drug design, evaluation of effectiveness, and drug administration, but we find he is not adequately qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of treating hair loss disorders.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes the same definition as Petitioner, but adds that the skilled artisan “would also have had experience in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA [alopecia areata] formulations, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶ 14). Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Ko critiques Petitioner’s proposed definition as “incomplete, because it lacks any requirement for experience, or access to individuals with experience, in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA formulations.” Ex. 2059 ¶ 16. However, neither Dr. Ko nor Patent Owner explains what difference this additional direct experience would have provided to an artisan with the skill level proposed by Petitioner, particularly when Petitioner’s definition includes “experience in treating hair loss disorders,” and for which the record contains evidence that existing JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib had been identified as causing reversal of hair loss caused by AA. Ex. 1003, 1043. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as consistent with the level of skill apparent in the cited prior art. In any event, as Patent Owner does not explain why its alternative definition would have any bearing on the outcome of the present case, and as we discern no appreciable difference in the parties’ definitions, we note our findings and conclusions would be the same regardless of which definition were adopted. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not 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 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction We construe claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. Therefore, we construe the challenged claims under the framework set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this framework, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We have considered Petitioner’s claim construction proposals (see Pet. 21–23), which are uncontested (see generally Resp., not addressing construction), and find that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim term for purposes of rendering this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Section 102(b)(1) provides two exceptions to § 102(a)(1) for disclosures made within one year of the effective filing date. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) provides that a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with respect to the claimed invention if: (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,659 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,659
• Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2022 · PGR2020-00079 · APJ David C Mckone · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to prove the asserted §112 grounds and obviousness grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “As we stated in the Institution Decision (at 30), Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable in light of the descriptions in the ’653 patent and prior art, and is supported by expert testimony. We further find that Patent Owner’s proposed addition, that a skilled artisan would have had experience with digital signal processing, is consistent with the descriptions in the ’653 patent and prior art. Because the parties do not contend that their disagreement over “at least” has any bearing on this proceeding, we need not evaluate whether a skilled artisan might have had more than three years of work experience or whether that would lead to vagueness. Instead, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, with Patent Owner’s addition, and omit “at least”: A skilled artisan would have possessed: (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or acoustical engineering that included coursework on the design of acoustic and/or antenna arrays, phased arrays, and/or beamforming; or (ii) three years of work experience in the field of directional microphone arrays; and the skilled artisan would have had experience with digital signal processing.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that the claim limitation at issue here specifies a single device that has multiple properties. Rather, claim 1 broadly recites “a ceiling tile combined with the beamforming microphone array.” We agree with Petitioner that the plain language of claim 1 does not require that the entire beamforming microphone array is physically integrated into a single ceiling tile, as combining a ceiling tile and a microphone array is broader than physically installing the microphone array in the ceiling tile. Nor can the language of claim 1 reasonably be read to exclude combining more than one ceiling tile with the microphone array. Where claim 1 assigns specific properties to a ceiling tile, it does so expressly, reciting “the ceiling tile being sized and shaped to be mountable in a drop ceiling in place of at least one of a plurality of ceiling tiles included in the drop ceiling.” Thus, the plain language of claim 1 requires at least one ceiling tile combined in some way with a beamforming microphone array, and each ceiling tile (if there is more than one) is a particular size and shape.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Second, Patent Owner argues that our construction “should reflect the fact the microphones of a [beamforming microphone array] are located in positions relative to each other, by design, to establish constructive interference in one or more preferred beam directions.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 31–37, 48). Petitioner responds that claim 1 recites “beamforming” broadly and that Patent Owner attempts to limit “beamforming” to one technique out of several, including techniques that determine time delay between microphones rather than knowing the distances between the microphones. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 11–21). The parties’ competing proposals here are directed to Petitioner’s allegations that CTG System and Levit render the challenged claims obvious. However, as explained below, Petitioner has not established whether CTG System performs beamforming under either proposed construction. Thus, we need not resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 19

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Despite an obligation to identify in the Petition the evidence that supports its indefiniteness allegations,5 Petitioner largely failed to discuss the Specification. Pet. 30; see also Dec. 41 (“Despite enumerating five techniques that it contends exemplify ‘adaptive acoustic processing,’ Petitioner does little to address the description of those techniques in the Specification.”). In one passage cited by Petitioner, the Specification states that an “embodiment of Array 116 may include adaptive acoustic processing that automatically adjusts to the room configuration for the best possible audio pickup.” Ex. 1001, 6:13–16. Petitioner argues that this description “lacks any disclosure providing objective boundaries of the claim’s scope, either through definitions or working examples.” Pet. 30. Petitioner also acknowledges that the Specification “discusses acoustic echo cancellation (in general) as an additional feature from adaptive acoustic processing,” and admits that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that echo cancellation processing occurring automatically in response to a room configuration would be a meaning of adaptive acoustic processing.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:5–22). However, Petitioner does not discuss the rest of the Specification in the Petition. Petitioner should have addressed in the Petition the express descriptions of Dr. Vipperman’s enumerated examples of adaptive acoustic processing in the Specification in order to support its 5 Our rules require Petitioner to make its case in the Petition, including identifying “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” “the specific part of the claim that fails to comply with the statutory grounds raised and . . . how the identified subject matter fails to comply with the statute,” and “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b). Indeed, “[t]he Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Id. at § 42.204(b)(5). otherwise conclusory statement that “[n]one of these techniques are described in the specification,” Pet. 32. If it was Petitioner’s position that these express descriptions were nevertheless not examples of adaptive acoustic processing, Petitioner should have made those arguments in the Petition.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,728,653 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,728,653
• Bluecatbio Ma Inc. v. Yantai Ausbio Laboratories Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2021 · PGR2020-00051 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · PGR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 3–5, 7, 10–12, and 14–20 unpatentable because the Gyro Washer was not shown to drive all or nearly all expelled liquid to the drain.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that Patent Owner’s additions are supported by the ’063 Patent. Patent Owner directs us to portions of the Specification that discuss immunoassays, magnetic bead assays, and cellular assays, as well as the need to avoid cross-contamination for these types of reactions. PO Resp. 14; Ex. 1001, 1:24–28, 3:43–45; 3:63–66, 4:25–32, 13:25–50, 15:52– 16:2, 19:41–59. We find that these disclosures support Patent Owner’s contention that a POSA would have been aware of the operational requirements of reaction vessel unit washing devices, methods used to cross-contamination. For these reasons, we apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSA as modified by Patent Owner’s additions. Pet. 16; PO Resp. 15.4” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction stays true to the claim language. PO Sur-reply 5. As just discussed, “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing” refers back to an earlier part of the claim that recites that rotating the rotor (referred to in claim 12 as inner surface of the housing. Ex. 1001, 24:5–8, 25:5–7. Claims 1 and 12 recite “the expelled liquid” without any modifier, such as “at least some.” In our view, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the claim language because the antecedent for “the expelled liquid” is the liquid that is expelled from the reaction vessel onto the inner surface of the housing, not merely some portion of that liquid. Nothing in the claim language suggests that “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing” is divisible, with some of the liquid being driven by the wind to the drain and some of the liquid not being driven by the wind to the drain. For example, we see no support in the claim language for Petitioner’s argument that “the first expelled milliliter qualifies as ‘liquid . . . expelled,’ and the second milliliter also qualifies as ‘liquid . . . expelled,’ and so on.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 65). Although “all or nearly all” is not expressly recited in the claim, neither is “some.” As between these two constructions, “all or nearly all” more closely aligns with the language and structure of claims 1 and 12, including the antecedent for “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing,” which in our view refers to the undivided whole of the liquid.6” slip op. at 15

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

    “5. Weighing the Evidence For all of the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Gyro Washer generates a wind that drives to the drain “all or nearly all of the liquid expelled from the reaction vessel onto the inner surface of the housing,” as required by our claim construction. More particularly, we find that the photos and observations of the Gyro Washer and microplates after completion of a wash cycle, as discussed in subsection 2 above, show that a substantial amount of the liquid expelled from a microplate onto the inner surface of the housing is not driven by the wind to the drain of the Gyro Washer. We find that this evidence outweighs the other evidence relied upon by Petitioner to show that the wind limitation is met, including the videos and observations of the Gyro Washer in operation, as discussed in subsection 1 above, Petitioner’s droplet experiments, as discussed in subsection 3 above, and Petitioner’s bucket experiments, as discussed in subsection 4 above.” slip op. at 48

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

    “dependent claim 10, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to use an aspiration pump with the Gyro Washer. Pet. 104–105 (relying on evidence that a Gyro Washer was sold with an aspiration pump). For dependent claims 7 and 17, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to modify the Gyro Washer so that the rotor is rotated in a second rotational direction. Pet. 105–108, 114. For method claims 12 and 14–17, Petitioner contends that, even in the absence of Mr. Yagi’s demonstrations of the Gyro Washer at the 2009 and 2010 trade shows, the method of using the Gyro Washer would have been obvious in view of the device itself and that the limitations claims 12 and 14–16 are satisfied by the natural, ordinary, and intended use of the Gyro Washer. Pet. 108–114. Petitioner’s contentions do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s arguments and evidence addressing the wind limitation, as discussed above. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claims 7, 10, 12 and 14–17 would have been obvious in view of the Gyro Washer.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 10,338,063 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,338,063

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.