• Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 14, 2024 · IPR2023-00442 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Dixon because Dixon anticipates them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We adopt the same reasoning here, and conclude that the evidence of record and the Specification of the ’681 patent support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to a patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” (emphasis added). 8 F.4th 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We consequently reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction that the language of the preamble reciting a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder” requires not only an intent to treat, but, additionally, a high degree of efficacy on par with monthly Lucentis. See PO Resp. 9–10.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44. Patent Owner does not expressly dispute Petitioner’s construction, other than to argue that, by 2011, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “initial” and “secondary” doses to correspond to loading doses and “tertiary” doses to correspond to maintenance doses. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66; Ex. 2349, 6–11. Patent Owner contends that the purpose (and expected effect) of loading doses was to achieve visual acuity gains and retina drying, and the goal of less frequent maintenance doses was to maintain the efficacy achieved with loading doses. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66). As we have explained above, we do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the definition of these terms requires a high, or otherwise defined, degree of efficacy. As we stated in the -00881 and -01225 Decisions: Based on those express definitions in the Specification, we do not find cause to construe the terms differently. In particular, we do not find that the Specification requires the “tertiary doses” to maintain any efficacy gain achieved after the initial and secondary doses, or that the term suggests any specific level of efficacy. The Specification unequivocally states that “[t]he terms ‘initial dose,’ ‘secondary doses,’ and ‘tertiary doses,’ refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist.”” slip op. at 18

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

    “If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, the second step of the Praxair analysis is to determine whether the printed matter is functionally related to its “substrate.” Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032. Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight. Id. (citing DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850). However, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id. (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). More specifically, printed matter is functionally related to its substrate when the language changes not mere thoughts or outcomes, but provides action steps that the method requires. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the test for printed matter is whether it “merely informs people of the claimed information, or whether it instead interacts with the other elements of the claim to … cause a specific action in a claimed process.”); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that language “is only a statement of purpose and intended result” where its “expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner notes that the Petitioner in the ’00881 IPR proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field. Pet. 17–18 (quoting -00881 IPR, Paper 94 at 9–10). Furthermore, it was asserted that such a person would typically have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D. (or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders, including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Id. at 18 (citing -00881 IPR Paper 94 at 10). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. In the -01225 IPR, we adopted the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the challenged claims of the ’681 patent, concluding that that definition was consistent with the level of skill in the art. See -01225 IPR, Paper 96 at 52–53. Having previously adopted this definition of the level of skill in the art for the claims of the ’681 patent, we do so again in the present proceeding.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2022-01600 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–7 and 9–20 over Olmos and Varela ’774, and claim 8 over Olmos, Varela ’774, and Oglaza.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”): would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or biomedical engineering and two or more years of experience in biomechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and/or spinal implant devices. A person could also have qualified as a POSITA with some combination of more formal education (e.g., an M.D.) and less technical experience or less formal education and more technical or professional experience in the foregoing fields, and would have had further appreciation of various technical concepts in this field. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–35). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See Response 8. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “We credit Mr. Drewry’s testimony that it would have been well within the ordinary skill of a POSITA to make the proposed modifications. See Ex. 1002 (Drewry Decl.) ¶¶ 34, 56–71 (discussing the qualifications of a POSITA and the types of engineering concepts the POSITA would have understood); Ex. 1030 (Drewry Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 37, 48–56, 59–66. To the extent Mr. Culbert testifies otherwise, we do not find such testimony persuasive. Indeed, Olmos itself further supports Mr. Drewry’s testimony that a POSITA would have known how to modify dimensions to fit specific needs and make changes necessary to adapt features from one embodiment to fit another. See Ex. 1006 (Olmos) ¶¶ 153, 188 (providing a range of implant sizes and noting that “specific dimensions” of any disclosed 9 Patent Owner’s citation to Mr. Drewry’s deposition transcript at 87:13– 88:9 appears to be incorrect. We understand that the intended citation is 69:34–70:7. embodiment can be varied as is apparent to a POSITA and “all features discussed in connection with any one embodiment herein can be readily adapted for use in other embodiments herein to form various combinations and sub-combinations”). Given the POSITA’s ability to make the proposed modifications, we do not find that Patent Owner’s evidence regarding the number of modifications required undermines Petitioner’s articulated reasoning for the combination.” slip op. at 35

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “no terms require constructions differing from their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner states that it “takes no position on Petitioner’s assertion because the Board need not construe any claim term to find that the Challenged Claims are not unpatentable.” Response 8. We find that for purposes of this Decision, we need not construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 21

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,973,649 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,973,649
• Apple Inc. / Google LLC v. Spacetime3d, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00577 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–18 are unpatentable as obvious over either Robertson, Gralla, and Gettman or Sauve and Tsuda; claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “1. “3D space” and “two-dimensional (2D) space” As we stated in the Institution Decision, at page 20, the parties agree” slip op. at 11

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

    “4. Remaining claim terms Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide” slip op. at 23

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

    “predictably improved Sauve’s quick pick interface, and would have promoted space efficiency and conveyed order more clearly. Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 159). Petitioner further argues that the combination would have exploited spatial memory and more efficient use of screen space and, thus, would have been a differentiator among competing web browsers. Id. at 60–61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–162). Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination because GUIs, web browsers, and simulated 3D environments were all well-known technologies that had been demonstrated successfully in the real world. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 163). Dr. Fuchs’ testimony has rational underpinning, is logical and well-reasoned, and, accordingly, we give it substantial weight.” slip op. at 64

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. We have considered the portions of Sauve and Tsuda cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Schaefer, and find nothing that would discourage or lead in a direction divergent from the path taken by the inventor. Other than repeating Patent Owner’s argument that Sauve and Tsuda provide drastically different solutions for moving from one active window to another, Dr. Schaefer does not explain why he concludes that the solutions teach away from one another or point to evidence to support that conclusion. Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 225–227.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 8,881,048 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,881,048
• ZF North America, Inc. / ZF Active Safety US Inc. v. Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00273 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 7, 8, 14–19, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under §103 over the grounds decided; the motion to exclude was denied in part and dismissed in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties agree that one skilled in the relevant art would have had a bachelor’s degree in a relevant engineering discipline, plus at least two years of experience with what each believes to be the relevant technology. Though Patent Owner objects to explicitly listing a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering as a qualifying educational background, its proposed formulation includes open-ended language (i.e., “or a similar discipline”) that is broad enough to encompass electrical engineering degrees. Patent Owner also concedes that Dr. Lequesne, who has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, is qualified to give testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Hrg. Tr. 36:9–21. Accordingly, it does not appear that there is a substantive dispute regarding the educational requirements that is relevant to this proceeding. As to the necessary experience, Petitioner correctly points out that “most” claims of the ’415 Patent do not recite isolators or require attenuation or damping. Pet. Reply 23. However, the challenged independent claims (claims 5, 8, 16, and 17) all recite at least an isolator with a damping coefficient, and the ’415 Patent repeatedly mentions noise attenuation as being a goal of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:53–55, 5:33– 56. Patent Owner’s proposal also uses the disjunctive “or,” and thus is broad one or more of vibration isolation, vibration damping, or noise attenuation. On this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal, and determine that one of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’415 Patent pertains would have had a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering, automotive engineering, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience with vibration isolation, vibration damping, or noise attenuation in the context of mechanical or electromechanical systems. We find that this formulation is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. We note, however, that none of the issues in this case appears to turn on differences between the parties’ proposed formulations, and that all of the findings and conclusions set forth below would have remained the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed formulation. C.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We begin our analysis of this dispute by looking at the language of the claims themselves. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In so doing, we note that Patent Owner is correct in asserting that certain claims recite a vibration isolator disposed between a sub-frame and an actuator housing. See Ex. 1001, Claims 16, 17; PO Resp. 17. Other challenged claims, however, do not contain any limitations that pertain to an actuator housing. See Ex. 1001, claims 5, 7, 8. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, thus, would incorporate new limitations pertaining to an actuator housing into at least claims 5, 7, and 8. Next, we turn to the specification. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. In so doing, we note that it is generally improper to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims because 35 U.S.C. § 112 “requires that the claims themselves set forth the limits of the patent grant, [and] also definitions of terms to the exact representations depicted in the embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. There are, of course, exceptions. A specification may contain a “special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But any such special definition must “clearly redefine a claim term ‘so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.’” Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific Int’l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Process Control Corp. v. Hydreclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The specification also may “reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor.” Phillips, 415. F.3d at 1316. But any such disclaimer “must be clear.” Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Patent Owner is correct in its assertion that the specific embodiments disclosed in the ’415 Patent specification have separate sub-frames and actuator housings. See PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:44–54, 6:36–54). But the specification also makes clear that the applicant intended for these embodiments not to be construed as limiting the scope of the claims. See Ex. 1001, 8:36–42 (clarifying that the disclosed embodiments “are set forth here by way of illustration but not of limitation”). Patent Owner identifies nothing in the specification that rises to level of a definition or clear and intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope, and we see no such definition or disclaimer in the specification. Patent Owner’s reliance on In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017), is also misplaced. In re broadest reasonable interpretation standard—a standard that does not apply in this case. See id. at 1381–82. Moreover, the claim construction at issue in Smith was so broad that the Federal Circuit characterized it as “generic.” See id. at 1382. Here, the parties agree that the claim term sub-frame has a specific meaning: a frame for a sub-assembly. See PO Resp. 16; Pet. Reply 13; Hrg. Tr. 13:7–12. Nothing in Smith requires or suggests that under the Phillips standard, we must interpret the non-generic claim term “sub-frame” in a way that would incorporate new limitations pertaining to an actuator housing into claims that do not even mention an actuator housing.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We decline to find Dr. Lequesne less credible based solely on his electrical engineering degree and relative level of experience with noise vibration and damping. As noted above, Patent Owner does not dispute that Dr. Lequesne is qualified to give testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that “Dr. Lequesne has spent his 40-year career as a designer in the automotive industry, has worked on EPBA [electronic parking brake actuators and NVH [noise, vibration, and harshness].” Pet. Reply 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 7–9; Ex. 2007, 10:6–17, 11:21–16:3, 20:3–31:8; Ex. 1023). On this record, we find Dr. Lequesne qualified to provide expert testimony on the subject matter of the challenged claims of the ’415 Patent and asserted prior art references because he has a degree in electrical engineering, which is a “similar discipline,” and at least two years of experience with “vibration isolation, vibration damping, or noise attenuation in the context of mechanical or electromechanical systems.” See supra § III.B; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 4–12 (outlining Dr. Lequesne’s education and experience); Hrg. Tr. 36:9– 21 (Patent Owner’s counsel conceding that Dr. Lequesne is qualified to provide expert testimony). In judging the credibility of competing witnesses, we have weighed their testimony, taking into account the witnesses’ different educational qualifications and experiential backgrounds as they pertain to the ’415 Patent, as well as whether the witnesses offer corroboration for their opinions, and whether those opinions are consistent with the ’415 Patent, the prior art, and their cross-examination testimony. E.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s purported evidence of copying, industry praise, and commercial success lacks nexus to the claimed invention. To show that the accused devices at issue, i.e., the purportedly copied, praised, and commercially successful products sold be Petitioner, are coextensive with at least one independent claim of the ’415 Patent, Patent Owner relies on the claim charts shown in Exhibit 2016. PO Resp. 62; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 163–166. Patent Owner identifies those charts as “Exhibits A and B from Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions, served in Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. v. ZF North America, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:22cv10289.” Id. at viii. As such, the claim charts are apparently attorney argument summarizing Patent Owner’s allegations in the district court, not substantive evidence. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). Patent Owner’s attempt to challenged claims also constitutes an improper incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”); PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35–36; Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 8–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative). Moreover, Dr. Stein’s declaration lacks any explanation or analysis to support his belief that “there is a component in each of the photographed products” in the claim charts “that corresponds to each one of the claim elements,” his “overall agreement with the positions taken in the claim charts,” or his “understand[ing]” that the accused devices “in Ex. 2016 are co-extensive in scope with the ’415 Patent.” Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 163, 166. Dr. Stein’s declaration merely repeats, in conclusory fashion, that there is a nexus between the accused devices and the claimed invention, and is thus insufficient to establish a nexus. See Bosch Auto. Serv. Sol., LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As the Board recognized, however, the Pierce declaration lacks any explanation or analysis to support his asserted ‘understand[ing]’ that these commercial reset tools are covered by, or coextensive with, the claims of the ’796 patent. The Board permissibly concluded that this conclusory testimony lacks foundation.”); In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We agree with the Board that Dr. Brandes’ declaration merely repeats, in conclusory fashion, that there is a nexus between the success of white LEDs and the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner has thus failed to make a sufficient showing to establish a presumption of nexus. its secondary considerations evidence is a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. For the reasons explained above, we conclude that Patent Owner’s evidence purportedly showing copying, industry praise, and commercial success is entitled to little weight in our obviousness analysis because Patent Owner has not shown a sufficient nexus between the evidence presented and the invention claimed in any of the challenged claims. F.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,021,415 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,021,415
• Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00036 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10, 12–14, 16–18, 20–23, 25–28, 35, 37–39, and 42–45 are unpatentable; claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 24, and 29 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with at least four years of experience in the field of speech recognition,” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner contends that the Petition and supporting evidence, including the testimony of Mr. Schmandt, does not demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would have been able to fabricate an integrated circuit. PO Resp. 1. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would not also be expected to have specialized knowledge in integrated circuit fabrication in Petitioner does not present arguments to the contrary. See generally Reply. We agree with Petitioner, that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would have had a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with four years of experience in the field of speech recognition.3 Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:27 (describing in the “Background of Invention” section of the ’789 patent various speech recognition systems and methods). We also agree with Patent Owner, and rely on the supporting testimony of Dr. Anderson, in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would not have been a person of ordinary skill in the field of integrated circuit fabrication, and would not have had the education, experience, or skill necessary to fabricate an integrated circuit.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner “applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms as understood by a POSITA for all terms.” Pet. 5. We conclude that no terms require express construction to resolve a dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (internal citation omitted)).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that state memory 342 of Smyth is fabricated on the same integrated circuit as processor 341. Petitioner, in asserting that processor 341 and state memory 342 are on the same integrated circuit, cites the following testimony of Mr. Schmandt: In my opinion, the Motorola DSP56000 provides both memory and a processor fabricated on a single integrated circuit (IC). Kloker (Ex. 1009), 1 (discussing the Motorola DSP56000 includes “a core processor, RAM, ROM, peripheral interfaces, and a memory expansion interface on a single, 88-pin chip[”)]. . . . A POSITA would have understood or at least found obvious that Smyth thus teaches a single IC on which both classifier processor 341 and state memory 342 are fabricated. Ex. 1003 ¶ 165; Pet. 39. We do not credit Mr. Schmandt’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Smyth’s disclosure. Smyth discloses that classifier 34 comprises classifying processor 341 and state memory 342, and that “classifying processor 341 may be a suitably programmed digital signal processing (DSP) device.” Ex. 1005, 5:55–57, 6:5–6. Thus, Smyth itself, in discussing classifier 34, distinguishes processor 341 from state memory 342 in stating that only processor 341, and not both processor 341 and state memory 342, may be located on the DSP. describe processor 341 and state memory 342 as being fabricated on a single integrated circuit. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 34–37. Dr. Anderson persuasively explains that processor 341 and state memory 342 could not be fabricated on the same integrated circuit, because the design of the DSP for processor 341 does not include any memory that meets the requirements of state memory 342. Id. ¶¶ 38–45. We rely on the testimony of Dr. Anderson in finding that Petitioner has not shown that Smyth teaches that processor 341 and state memory 342 are fabricated on a single integrated circuit.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Decision to Institute, we understood Petitioner’s theory based on the combination of Smyth and Mozer to include fabricating an integrated circuit in stating that we were sufficiently persuaded “that fabricating a single integrated circuit that includes a calculating apparatus and an acoustic model memory . . . was within the level of ordinary skill.” Dec. 23. Our understanding was based on the Petition’s multiple contentions that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to fabricate Smyth’s processor and state memory on a single integrated circuit. See Pet. 41–44. For example, the Petition contends that “[a] POSITA would have found it obvious . . . to fabricate [Smyth’s processor and state memory] on a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 41–42 (emphasis added)); “a POSITA would have understood and found obvious . . . to fabricate a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory on a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 42 (emphasis added)); “[s]uch a use of a known technique of fabricating a memory and processor on a single integrated circuit” (id. (emphasis added)); “it would have been obvious to modify Smyth to form the classifier processor and associated memory on a single IC” (Pet. 43 (emphasis added)); (“it was well known in the prior art to fabricate a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 43–44 (emphasis added)); “[t]hus, a POSITA would have been motivated . . . to fabricate [Smyth’s processor and state memory] on a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 44 (emphasis added)). integrated circuit to using integrated circuits that were already fabricated. Reply 22–25. According to Petitioner, “the Petition did not map a POSITA physically fabricating an IC, but rather mapped a POSITA modifying Smyth according to Mozer’s undisputed teachings of a single IC on which a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory were already fabricated.” Id. at 23–24. However, as discussed in the previous paragraph, when discussing the combination of a processor and an acoustic model memory on an integrated circuit, the Petition used the verb “to fabricate” four times in the future tense and once in the present tense, as well as the verb “to form” once in the future tense. The Petition did not use the past tense phrase “were already fabricated” as alleged in the Reply. Moreover, the Petition did not map Smyth’s state memory (which the Petition contends teaches the claimed “acoustic model memory” (see Pet. 11)) to a memory already fabricated on an integrated circuit in the prior art. Rather, the Petition relied on Mozer to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have fabricated the calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory of Smyth on an integrated circuit. See Pet. 42, 44. The Petition cited Boike and Ozcelik in contending that fabricating an integrated circuit with processors and memories was well known, and cited Toyoda in contending that fabricating an integrated circuit with a calculating apparatus and an acoustic model memory was well known. Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1006; Ex. 1029; Ex. 1034). However, the Petition did not explain how a memory located in one of the integrated circuits of Mozer, Boike, Ozcelik, or Toyoda would have been able to store Smyth’s state memory. Therefore, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that “the Petition did not map a POSITA physically fabricating an IC, but rather mapped a single IC on which a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory were already fabricated.” Reply 23–24. We find that this contention was untimely presented in the Reply. We do not permit Petitioner to propose a mapping of the prior art in the Petition and then completely change that mapping after Patent Owner argues the initial mapping was flawed. A “petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” TPG 73; see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board did not err in refusing the reply brief as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because petitioner relied on an entirely new rationale to explain why one of skill in the art would have combined the references at issue); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Apple Inc. v. eWatch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the position originally taken in the Petition. Accepting such belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,839,789 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,839,789
• Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00399 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika because Dill did not teach or render obvious the hardware SIM card and integration tier limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Institution Decision, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in software development with a basic knowledge of accounting” and “working knowledge of mobile payment systems and techniques,” as Petitioner proposes. Inst. Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 3–4). We stated that “this definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’488 patent and the asserted prior art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22; Ex. 2001 ¶ 35).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “In addition, Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Houh’s testimony (see Pet. 23–24) is unavailing. Although Dr. Houh agrees with the arguments in the Petition and includes quotes from the cited portions of Dill and Bykov (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–97), he provides no additional analysis or explanation beyond what was provided in the Petition. As a result, his testimony suffers the same deficiencies as the Petition. Also, we do not credit his conclusion that Dill includes the requisite disclosure (see id. ¶ 97) because he fails to provide sufficient supporting explanation or evidence (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). Finally, we note that Petitioner misrepresents Dr. Shamos’s testimony by stating that Dr. Shamos “agrees that if a mobile device executes a mobile wallet over a cellular network, the mobile device has a SIM card for the mobile wallet.” Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10). In the cited testimony, Dr. Shamos agrees that mobile devices have SIM cards, but he does not address where a mobile wallet application would be installed. Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, we determine that Dr. Shamos’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 27

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

    “for the term “hardware SIM card” because the important points are undisputed. In particular, the parties agree that a “hardware SIM card” is a SIM card implemented in hardware rather than software. See Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶ 36); Tr. 40:25–41:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel explaining that the language in its proposed construction was “to differentiate it from a software SIM card”); see also PO Resp. 16, 19 (asserting that the term refers to a specific type of hardware, namely a “chip” or a “smart card”) (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 32–33). The parties also agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “SIM card” is a component in a mobile device involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See Tr. 30:23–31:3 (Petitioner’s counsel stating “a SIM card, just as known in the art . . . would allow the user to be able to access the mobile network” 10 Each page in Exhibit 2021 includes at least two page numbers. For clarity, we refer to the page number of the exhibit (shown in the bottom right corner), and we have adjusted Patent Owner’s citation accordingly. given “the user’s identification information on it”), 39:24–40:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that “I think everyone is in agreement that the critical aspect of what makes a SIM card a SIM card is that it can authenticate a mobile device to a wireless network”). The evidence supports the parties’ understanding. The word “SIM” is an acronym for “subscriber identity module” (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:58–67; Ex. 2021, 5), and the record shows that a SIM is a specific component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network (see Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 30–31; see also e.g., Ex. 2021, 7 (stating that a SIM’s “primary function” is “to authenticate the subscriber to the network”); Ex. 2025, 3 (describing the SIM)).11 Consequently, we determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood a “hardware SIM card” to be a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. We do not need to further construe the term, or determine whether the additional requirements proposed by Patent Owner are appropriate, because Petitioner fails to show that the prior art teaches or suggests the claimed “hardware SIM card,” as explained below. See infra § II.D.2.a (analyzing the parties’ substantive contentions).” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dill discloses “a mobile wallet application installed on a hardware SIM card,” as required by element 1.3B. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, even assuming that Dill teaches installing a mobile wallet application somewhere on a mobile device (see Pet. 23),14 Dill does not teach installing it on a hardware SIM card,15 as specifically required by the claim. Petitioner relies upon paragraph 106 of Dill (see Pet. 23), but that paragraph does not disclose this claim limitation (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 106). In relevant part, that paragraph of Dill simply states: 14 Patent Owner disagrees with this premise, arguing that Dill does not disclose a mobile device that includes a mobile wallet application. See PO Resp. 52–56. We need not resolve that dispute because, even assuming Petitioner’s premise (as we have done in this Decision), Petitioner still fails to show that the claims are unpatentable. 15 As noted above, a “hardware SIM card” is a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See supra § II.C.1 (addressing meaning of term). It should also be appreciated that the methods described above may be performed by hardware components or may be embodied in sequences of machine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause a machine such as a general-purpose or special-purpose processor or logic circuits programmed with the instructions to perform the methods. These machine-executable instructions may be stored on one or more machine readable mediums, such as CD-ROMs or other type of optical disks, floppy diskettes, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other types of machine-readable mediums suitable for storing electronic instructions. Alternatively, the methods may be performed by a combination of hardware and software. Ex. 1005 ¶ 106 (emphases added). This teaches storing instructions on “other types of machine-readable mediums,” but it fails to teach storing instructions on a hardware SIM card, much less storing Dill’s mobile wallet application there. In short, Dill is silent with respect to this issue, and silence is not disclosure. Notably, Petitioner does not contend (or show) that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device would necessarily be installed on a hardware SIM card. See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–97. Indeed, the record indicates that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device could instead be installed on a different component. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:1–3, 9:33–35 (identifying device memory as alternate component); Ex. 2021, 5 (describing SIM as the “smaller of two computer chips inside a GSM mobile handset”); cf. Pet. Reply 9 (distinguishing between hardware SIM cards and software ones). Thus, Petitioner fails to show that this claim limitation is inherent in Dill. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that inherency requires a showing that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,208,488 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,208,488
• Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00180 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–14, 19, and 20 are unpatentable: Johnson anticipates claims 11–13 and 19; Sutton anticipates claims 11, 19, and 20; and Sutton with Fry renders claim 12 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner “does not dispute [Petitioner’s] proposed level of skill in the art” in this case. PO Resp. 9–10; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 37 (Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Stone, accepting and applying Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’220 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above.” slip op. at 10

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

    “then save.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–56). According to Patent Owner, “[m]erely saving data is not enough.” Id. Petitioner disagrees, contending that Patent Owner’s proffered interpretation of “record” is inconsistent with the Specification, which “repeatedly distinguishes between ‘record’ and ‘measure’” and uses “‘record’ in connection with saving/storing and ‘measure’ in connection with sensing.” Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–34, 8:51–53, 11:61–62, 11:65–67, 13:5–6, 15:18–24, 15:41–45, 20:2– 6; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 13–19). Based on our review of the parties’ argument and cited evidence, we find that “record” means “save” and does not encompass “measure or capture” as Patent Owner argues. The Specification describes the act of measuring as being performed by various sensors or other devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:51–53 (“sensors for measuring”), 11:65–67 (“accelerometers . . . for measuring”), 15:18–24 (“Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) navigation device” for measuring distance traveled and an “EKG monitor” for “measuring the electrical activity of the user”). The Specification also expressly distinguishes the act of measuring from the act of recording when discussing how the location of a user is measured and recorded. The Specification states: The inclusion of GPS device 713 and accelerometer 715 in a single mobile device 700 allows device 700 to record athletic activity data in multiple workout settings. . . . If, . . . the individual is running outdoors such that the individual moves from one location to another, the GPS device 713 or recording of data therefrom (e.g., GPS device is always active, but recording is turned on and off) may be activated and used instead [of the data measured by accelerometer 715]. Id. at 19:59–20:6 (emphasis added). Even though GPS “is always active” and measuring the location of the user, “recording is turned on and off.” Accordingly, the Specification expressly distinguishes that act of measuring from the act of recording.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner persuasively contends that the Specification discloses at least six additional ways for a user to select an option to share athletic information that would be excluded under Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 53F, 53S, 53V, 54C, 77, 82, and accompanying text at 45:22–44, 46:23–28, 47:42–44, 47:63–48:15, 53:27–52). Petitioner also persuasively argues that portion of the Specification cited by Patent Owner fails to sufficiently express intent to limit the scope of “sharing option selection” to “a user command or confirmation.” Id. at 13 (citing Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Amer. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (lexicography requires “clear” expression of intent to redefine the term (emphasis omitted))). Patent Owner’s attempt in the Sur-reply to cite cases for the proposition that claims need not cover all embodiments is unavailing because we discern no clear intent in the Specification to limit the claim to one specific embodiment. For all these reasons, we reject Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “the sharing option selection” 8 and instead read it according to its plain meaning, which encompasses, for example, the 8 The phrase “sharing option selection” is introduced in element 11D, and we conclude that phrase carries the same meaning as it does in element 11E. selection of an option to automatically share athletic information in advance of a workout.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner argues that Johnson’s device 601 “does not ‘record’ (i.e., measure or capture, and then save) athletic activity.” PO Resp. 23. Patent Owner contends that “Johnson’s device 601 merely receives and displays pre-recorded athletic activity data that it ‘receives’ from a separate ‘collection’ device” [501], which is the device that “records” the athletic activity. Id. at 24. Patent Owner argues that “writing” data to memory is not “recording” data because it “does not include capturing or measuring the athletic activity itself, only saving it.” Id. Patent Owner concedes that Johnson’s device 601 stores the user’s athletic activity. PO Resp. 24; Sur-reply 8. Patent Owner’s argument that Johnson fails to describe element 11C depends upon us ruling in its favor on the meaning of element 11C. As explained in Part V.A above, we reject Patent Owner’s argument that “record” as used in element 11C also requires the apparatus to “measure or capture” athletic activity. Accordingly, based on Petitioner’s argument regarding element 11C, which we adopt as our own, and the evidence cited in support, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Johnson describes the limitations of element 11C.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,232,220 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,232,220
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2022-01435 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: Chung anticipates claim 10, and the Olmos-based obviousness grounds establish unpatentability of claims 1–11.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “9 Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s Reply brief “presents copious new evidence and theories that exceed the scope of proper reply” and “[t]he Board should refuse to consider” it. Sur-reply 7–9. This generic objection to the entire Reply fails to provide adequate notice regarding which of Petitioner’s theories and arguments Patent Owner contends are allegedly new and improper. See, e.g., Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting generic objection to alleged new theories in reply as failing to provide adequate notice of which theories are allegedly new). Accordingly, we reject Patent Owner’s request that we “refuse to consider” the entirety of the Reply. Where Patent Owner’s Sur-reply raises more particularized complaints regarding Petitioner’s allegedly improper new arguments, we address those complaints as appropriate below.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, we find Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Chung.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 10,137,001 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,137,001
• Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00045 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable over Jones and/or Doo; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the obviousness grounds lacked adequate motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 6

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

    “2. “augmentation tag” Petitioner proposes the following construction for “augmentation tag”” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, Petitioner persuades us that Jones discloses limitation” slip op. at 31

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

    “reasoning why the POSITA would be motivated to combine, ‘what was known in the art at the relevant time,’ whatever that may be.” PO Resp. 42. We agree. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Rather, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 10,945,807 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,945,807
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01434 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 15 are unpatentable over Chung and Olmos-based obviousness grounds; claims 10–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach the claimed complementary relationship.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “improperly incorporates-by-reference 12 pages of expert testimony via a single sentence.” PO Sur-reply 16 n.2 (citing Pet. Reply 17, which in turn cites Ex. 1026 (Hatch Decl.) ¶¶ 49–66). We find that many of the paragraphs within the cited range (i.e., Hatch Declaration paragraphs 49–66) appear to have a tenuous connection to the proposition for which Petitioner cites these paragraphs. See Pet. Reply 17. That said, we find that paragraphs 53–55 directly relate to Petitioner’s proposition in the Reply, i.e., that “Petitioner’s experts explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would rely on a cross-sectional view over a perspective view for making the determination in question, because only the cross-sections provide the needed side view directly orthogonal to the positions of the yellow expansion portion and the end of the dovetail.” Id. Accordingly, we find that paragraphs 53–55—the only paragraphs we cite from Petitioner’s range in reaching our conclusion—are not improperly incorporated by reference into Petitioner’s Reply.” slip op. at 66

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “provide Petitioner an opportunity to respond under the new construction, and decline to strike Petitioner’s relevant argument and evidence. Cf. Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1383 (“[W]hen the Board adopts a new claim construction following institution, an IPR petitioner must have adequate notice and an opportunity to respond under the new construction.”). Like in Axonics, in its new arguments on Reply, Petitioner here relies on the same embodiment from the same prior art reference that it relies on in the Petition to support the same legal argument, i.e., that Olmos’s Figure 16 embodiment discloses the “complementary with one another” limitation of challenged claims 10– 14. See Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1384; see also Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (permitting petitioner to elaborate in reply on an unpatentability theory presented in the petition). Moreover, we permitted Patent Owner to file (and it indeed did file) a sur-reply brief and expert declaration that addressed Petitioner’s new obviousness theories. Accordingly, both parties had adequate notice of our preliminary construction and an opportunity to respond under that new construction. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to strike.” slip op. at 124

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “from the expansion portion. We agree with Patent Owner that the wording of this limitation as a whole requires that the “extension necessarily must protrude beyond a longitudinal end of the expansion portion.” Id. at 11. We also agree with Patent Owner that “[u]nder Petitioner’s tenuous theory, an extension in any direction except 90 or 180 degrees would satisfy the claim language since any such direction has a so-called ‘longitudinal component.’” Id. at 13. For these reasons, we disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the purported “longitudinal component” of Chung’s extension satisfies limitation 1[h].” slip op. at 55

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “would have been motivated to add an extension to the Figure 16 embodiment because “an integrally-formed extension advantageously requires fewer parts, which facilitates both manufacturing and use.” Pet. 118. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument is unavailing. PO Resp. 50. Petitioner’s combination entails adding an extension (from Figure 8) to an embodiment lacking one (Figure 16). We agree with Patent Owner that adding a new component (whether separately or integrally) can in some instances complicate manufacturing/assembly and increase costs. See id. (citing Ex. 2013 (Culbert Decl.) ¶ 115). Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed combination in this instance would reduce complexity or facilitate the manufacturing process. Accordingly, we do not rely on this argument offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 106

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,731 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,731

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.