- Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01035 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–6, 8–10, and 22–28, and denied substitute claims 29–44 because Wright ’451 rendered them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 16). Patent Owner took no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. Inst. 6–7. In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that it accepts the Board’s definition for purposes of this proceeding. MTA 24. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears to be consistent with 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 shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although neither party expressly proposes a construction for the term “conversion,” the parties appear to differ in their interpretations of that term. Petitioner interprets “conversion” to mean the percent conversion of the 1- alcohol. See Pet. Opp. RMTA 6–7 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of remaining 1-alcohol); Ex. 1040, 109:2–11. Patent Owner, on the other hand, interprets “conversion” to mean the total percentage of alkenes that have been produced. Ex. 2010 ¶ 123 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of total alkenes). During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner conceded that “conversion can mean either.” Tr. 27:18–28:13. Without the benefit of briefing by the parties, we decline to expressly construe the term “conversion,” as our Decision would be the same under either interpretation, as discussed further below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Moreover, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said claimed invention pertains. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Objective evidence of nonobviousness may include” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded. “[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must, therefore, first consider what results were expected to determine what a POSA would have considered to be unexpected. Id. As seen by the table below, Wright ’451’s disclosure fully encompasses the temperature ranges and purported unexpected results recited by substitute claim 29 and shown in Table 2 of the ’048 Patent: Reference Reaction Calcination Conversion Regioselectivity Rate13 Temperature Temperature Wright ’451 about 220 °C about 200 °C greater than about 90% to to about to 600 °C about 95% about 99% 440 °C Substitute 240 °C to about 420 °C at least 95% to about Claim 29” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,995,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,995,048 - PTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · PGR2024-00028 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner showed it was more likely than not to prevail on obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one of claims 1–10 of the ’737 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) as of the effective filing date of the challenged claims. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a medical degree and sufficient experience with interventional procedures, specifically with endovascular procedures including extensive use of both angioplasty balloons and occlusion devices. A[nd that a] busy interventionalist could conceivably acquire an adequate level of experience having a minimum of ten years of post-graduate experience as an interventional radiologist, vascular surgeon, interventional cardiologist, or other endovascular interventionist. Such a person would be familiar with various occlusion balloon catheters and their use in performing vascular occlusion procedures including occlusion procedures throughout the vascular system, including occlusion procedures within the aorta. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Patent Owner states that: “Solely for purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not object to Petitioner’s definition of a PHOSITA. Patent Owner reserves the right to assert an alternative definition for a PHOSITA in this or another proceeding involving the ‘737 Patent, where appropriate.” Prelim. Resp. 12.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“• “proximal”: “a portion or component of the preferred vascular occlusion catheter system that is oriented away from the body into which the system is or is intended to be placed.” Ex-1001, 21:52-56. • “distal”: “a portion or component of the preferred balloon catheter system that is oriented toward the body into which the system is or is intended to be placed.” Ex- 1001, 21:56-60.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We find that the evidence currently of record reasonably supports an interpretation where the claimed proximal hub and flow valve may be in an element/sub-element relationship where the recited flow valve is a portion of the recited proximal hub.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,857,737 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00766 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious over the prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, each of these asserted modifications is based on a teaching that is not present in Brown. Brown does not teach “a projection that provides resistance against ‘handle’ movement” or that “opening Brown’s ‘cover’ requires bending Brown’s ‘port,’” as asserted by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 22. As repeatedly noted, the identified “projection” appears to be nothing more than a portion of cover 14 the accessory/hose port. Petitioner’s arguments regarding a projection that provides resistance and a bendable port in Brown, appear to be nothing more than an effort to create the limitations of the claims in the prior art based on improper hindsight. For at least the above reasons, the Petition does not show how Brown teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the independent claims.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“Petitioner argues that when cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) is in position on the vacuum, end wall 26 cannot open and, thus, that end wall is inhibited from opening. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 37, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–145 (similar statements from Petitioner’s declarant)). Petitioner then asserts that the catch is therefore inhibited from moving to the disengaged position. Id. at 46. The combination of Dimbylow and Howes does not teach this limitation and Petitioner’s assertions are not persuasive. As can be seen from the above annotated Figure, nothing inhibits Dimbylow’s catch 42 from moving to a disengaged position. See also Prelim. Resp 11–14. Rather, any time Howe’s button is pressed, thereby moving the push-rod (to the right in the Figure), catch 42 would disengage, whether the door opened or not. Though cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) inhibits end wall 26 from opening, it has no impact on movement of catch 42 (i.e. lock engaging member) from the engaged to disengaged position as required by the claim. Thus, the lock engaging member of Petitioner’s combination, i.e., the catch, is not inhibited from moving to a disengaged position when the accessory, i.e., the cleaning” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA”). Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner’s declarant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field and 2-3 years of experience in machine design, such as vacuum cleaners. Additional education could offset less experience and vice versa, and a POSA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means. Ex. 1002 ¶ 42; see also Pet. 22 (making the same assertion without citation to declarant). Patent Owner does not contest the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 2. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s (and its declarant’s) proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’477 patent and prior art of record. We adopt the above definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,568,477 - PTAB · Oct 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00733 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success based on anticipation by Liddell and obviousness over Simpson and Liddell.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“preamble term “hand carriable” does not limit the claimed apparatuses. “[A] preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Catalina Marketing, 289 F.3d at 808 (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). This rule against giving effect to intended-use language in the preamble “reflects a longstanding substantive aspect of the patent statue—specifically, the ‘well settled’ fundamental principle ‘that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.’” Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products, Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). In this case, we view the phrase “hand carriable,” as it appears in the preamble, to be indicative of an intended use of the claimed apparatuses, rather than a structural limitation, and as such, we do not see it to be limiting based on the current record. Patent Owner does not point to any particular structural limitation required by the preamble term “hand carriable.” See Prelim. Resp. 2–10. Although the independent claims each recite “a handle,” the claims do not explicitly tie this limitation to the “hand carriable” language in the preambles. In any case, to the extent the handle recited in the claims may be used for carrying the claimed apparatus, the claims need not rely on the preamble term “hand carriable” for antecedent basis, as the handle limitation is introduced in the body of the claims. In other words, with respect to the functionality of carrying the apparatus by hand, the claim bodies recite “a structurally complete invention.” Catalina Marketing, 289 F.3d at 808.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Reference is prior artInstituted
“reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of independent claim 1. In our view, Petitioner’s analysis, on this record, adequately identifies where all the elements of claim 1 are found in Liddell.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“On the current record, we find that the Petition provides sufficient rationale to modify Simpson in view of Liddell. See Pet. 57–61 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 250–267). For example, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Liddell’s cyclonic separating apparatus into Simpson’s vacuum cleaner in order to reap “the benefits of cyclonic separation, including maintaining steady suction as the separator fills with dirt.” Id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 256– 259). Petitioner explains that Organ establishes that “bagless vacuums like ‘cyclonic’ vacuums were ‘becoming increasingly popular’” in the prior art because they are able “to maintain a consistently high level of suction, even as the collecting chamber fills with dirt” (id. (citing Ex. 1006, 1:8–13)), and relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Giachetti, argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “would have been motivated to substitute Simpson’s dust separation system with a bagless cyclonic separator for the same reason” (id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 281)).” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,327,607 - BTL Industries, Inc. v. Inmode Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00703 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–58 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would have been obvious over Edwards, Ingle, and Mosher.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’511 patent would have had “a medical degree plus at least two years of experience in a field such as gynecology, urogynecology, or plastic surgery involving female genital anatomy, with clinical experience in the application of radiant energy to female genital tissue.” Ex. 1009, 8–9; Ex. 1010, 8. Petitioner here proposes a similar definition, specifically, “a medical doctor . . . [with] at least three years of experience in the non-surgical treatment of uro-gynecological conditions and/or the non-surgical cosmetic treatment of female genital tissues.” Pet. 6. Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Berenholz. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–31, 58–60.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner asserts that “no claim term requires construction—all terms should receive their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the patent specification.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). Accordingly, Petitioner contends that formal constructions are unnecessary. Id. (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. 2017) (explaining that only those terms need be construed “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). Petitioner, nevertheless, succinctly reviews the preliminary construction of certain terms of the ’511 patent claims in the ThermiGen IPRs, and the construction by the District Court in Viveve. See Pet. 8–11. We note first that, whereas these two sets of prior constructions may differ in focus or scope, we do not view them as in conflict. And although the preliminary constructions in the ThermiGen IPRs were conducted under the then-applicable broadest-reasonable-interpretation (BRI) standard, we are not presently aware of any reason that those definitions would differ under the Phillips standard, and we provisionally apply them here for clarity. And while we recognize that the Viveve constructions are not binding on this proceeding, the district court’s definitions are instructive and generally complementary to ThermiGen IPR constructions. Accordingly, we also provisionally apply them here for clarity. Although none of these terms are presently in dispute, we find it useful to clarify the meanings we apply at this stage of the proceeding. The parties are, of course, welcome to address the construction of any claim term at trial.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Mosher, and Ingle with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention because 1) “loose vaginal or vulval tissue was a known problem facing women at the time,” 2) “Edwards, Mosher, and Ingle are all directed to methods for the non-invasive treatment of female uro-genital conditions, for therapeutic and/or cosmetic reasons,” and 3) each of the cited references teaches the application of radiant energy, including RF, to heat and denature collagen, thereby tightening and remodeling the affected tissues. See generally, Pet. 22–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–91. More specifically, Petitioner relies on Edwards as providing general teachings of a non-invasive treatment using RF energy, and looks to Mosher and Ingle for details regarding parameters, techniques, and the physiological mechanism underlying heat-mediated collagen remodeling of female genital tissue. See Pet. 23. According to Petitioner, the asserted “combination is merely applying known techniques (Mosher/Ingle’s treatment methods) to a known method ready for improvement (Edward’s treatment method) to yield the predictable result of tightening via collagen denaturation.” Id.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,961,511 - PTAB · Sep 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00650 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–38 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We determine whether to institute an inter partes review on behalf of the Director. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient were placed into a study arm and then treated with pembrolizumab. (See Ex. 1005, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–73.) Because treatment of the patients was performed only after MSI-H status was determined, the MSI-H Study Record teaches treating the patients “in response to” determining their MSI- H status.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“have been expected, Petitioner cites to Brown as teaching that PD-1 inhibitors are inherently more effective when treating tumors comprised of cells that are easy for immune cells to recognize. (See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1034, 747).) Petitioner argues further that Duval teaches that MSI-H cancers have cells that are easy for immune cells to recognize. (See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1087, 5002).) Dr. Neugut’s testimony supports Petitioner’s argument that the cited teachings of Brown and Duval, as well as other references, would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the results of the MSI-H Study Record. (See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124, 130, 132; see Pet. 41.) Petitioner argues further that Brown and Duval would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the results of the MSI-H Study Record by treating patients with common types of MSI-H cancers, including endometrial, small bowel, and gastric cancers. (See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130).) Petitioner argues further that the state of the art, as demonstrated by Brown and Duval, as well as other references, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success because physicians were successfully treating patients with cancers that were known to be MSI-H with PD-1 inhibitors. (See Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131, 132).)” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’219 patent would have been a medical doctor or a professional in a related field with at least five years of experience with treating cancer. (See Pet. 11 (citing Neugut Decl., Ex. 1003 ¶19).) Petitioner argues further that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have experience in or access to a person with knowledge of clinical studies for therapeutics and how they work and to a pathologist with comparable experience. (See id.) Dr. Neugut’s testimony supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding the level of skill that an ordinarily skilled artisan in the relevant field would have. (See Ex. 1003 ¶ 19.) Accordingly, in the analysis below, and in the absence of argument by Patent Owner to the contrary, we apply the level of skill set forth by Petitioner and refer to Dr. Neugut’s testimony of what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time the application that became the ’491 patent was filed, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,634,491 - Cimbria Srl v. 3u Vision SrlInstitutedPTAB · Sep 20, 2024 · PGR2024-00018 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–15 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, and 10 are obvious over ElMasry.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Post-grant review is available for patents that issue from applications that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the ’947 patent is eligible for post-grant review, and has shown it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’947 patent is unpatentable under § 324(a). Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’947 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, or an equivalent field, and at least 2-3 years of academic or industry experience in engineering related to optical sorting systems.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 21). Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition and, therefore, at this point, does not contest Petitioner’s definition for one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the disclosure of the ’947 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms for the purposes of rendering a decision to institute trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). At this stage, we find it unnecessary to resolve whether “electronic control unit” and “processing module” should be construed as mean plus function limitations under § 112(f), because it is possible to address the obviousness grounds presented whether or not these limitations are so construed, and even if the claims were indefinite in the manner Petitioner contends. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 813 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting indefiniteness of a means-plus-function limitation does not always render it impossible to adjudicate a prior-art challenge). We direct the parties to address the construction of these claim terms and Petitioner’s interpretation during trial.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“We have reviewed Petitioner evidence and citations and, on the current record, we find that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that ElMasry teaches all the limitations of claim 1, without need for any modification. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claim 1 would have been unpatentable as obvious over ElMasry.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,666,947 - PTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00690 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–28 on all asserted grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that Peter and Neroni render at least claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–1360 (2018) (requiring institution on all claims, if any); see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 64 (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”) (providing guidance in view of SAS).1” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “POSA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field and 2–3 years of experience in fluid dynamics and/or machine design for devices related to fluid dynamics, such as vacuum cleaners. Additional education could offset less experience and vice versa, and a POSA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means. Pet. 11. At this stage of the proceeding, “Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioners’ proposed definition of a POSITA,” but “reserves the right to provide an alternative definition of a POSITA if IPR is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 3. On the current record, we determine that Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the scope and content of the ’550 patent and the asserted prior art, and, at this stage, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Petitioner “do[es] not believe any claim construction is necessary to resolve the parties’ controversy in this Petition, and the claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning for purposes of this IPR.” Pet. 11. “Patent Owner does not submit any terms for construction,” but “reserves the right to subsequently submit claim terms for construction should the Board institute IPR.” Prelim. Resp. 3. We agree with the parties that, at this stage, no terms require explicit construction to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record to reach a decision on institution. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“On the current record, we find that the Petition provides sufficient rationale to modify Peter in view of Neroni. See Pet. 68–73 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 278–287). For example, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Neroni’s teachings of a power cleaning tool adaptor into Peter’s cleaning tool in order to “improve cleaning . . . by agitating the surface being cleaned.” Pet. 71–72 (citing Ex. 1007, 1–2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 285). Petitioner explains that Neroni establishes that “powered cleaning tools were common” in the prior art (id. at 72 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:17–49; Ex. 1002 ¶ 285)), and relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Giachetti, argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood the well-known benefits of a powered floor tool and would’ve been motivated to incorporate Neroni’s electrical system into Peter to achieve these benefits” (id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 286). Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the vacuums taught by Peter and Neroni because they “are directed to different types of vacuum cleaners” and “each [is concerned with] solving different problems with their respective vacuum cleaners.” Prelim. Resp. 19. However, other than pointing out that the vacuum cleaners in Peter and Neroni are different, Patent Owner itself provides conclusory statements, and fails to adequately explain what these differences are, or why they would deter one of ordinary skill in the art from combining the two references with a reasonable expectation of success. Patent Owner does not argue, and we see no reason to believe, that incorporating Neroni’s teachings of a power cleaning tool adaptor into Peter’s cleaning tool is not within the ability of one of skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Accordingly, on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient arguments and evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Peter and Neroni. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[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.”).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,117,550 - Orthocision, Inc. v. PTL Opco LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted § 103 ground because Petitioner did not adequately explain how or why the prior art would be combined.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Bovinet, uses a slightly different, but not materially so, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan than Petitioner. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 13. Thus, the parties appear to agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience. We accept and adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’129 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“3. Summary on Claim Construction We maintain our earlier constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . .” See DI 16–24. We determine that no other express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. Although we maintain here our constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . ,” we do so only for the sake of completeness. These claim constructions, ultimately, are not determinative of the outcome of this proceeding because, regardless of the meaning of any claim term, including these disputed terms, we find that Petitioner fails to adequately explain why any claim would have been obvious under the asserted grounds. We explain this in detail below. C.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 6:28–38 (emphasis added). However, the language of claim 1 is very clear on the functionality of the “open tip,” expressly reciting that “the open tip cuts bone tissue away from the sacrum or the ilium.” Id. at 13:19– 20. Thus, the claim language itself provides the required functionality of the “open tip,” and we do not agree with Petitioner that additional functionality relating to where bone tissue might go once cut, as discussed in the Specification, should be read into the claims as a limitation. Patent Owner’s newly proposed interpretation is similar to Petitioner’s in that it requests addition of functionality discussed as an example in the Specification, but not recited in the claim’s expressly recited functional language relating to the “open tip.” We disagree with Patent Owner that the concept of dislodged tissue entering a void defined by the open tip is necessary to understanding the claim element. And, once more, Patent Owner reads too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that the recited “open tip” language requires that we further clarify that any interior void defined by the open tip is on the interior of the abrading head, and behind the exterior abrading surfaces, or between interior surfaces of a first pair of opposing sides, as proposed by Patent Owner. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification . . . , it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. . . . [T]he claims define the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581–82 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112 ¶ 6) if, as here, it explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional language; this presumption is overcome if the limitation further includes the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Here, the word “means” is recited, followed by functional language, and the claim recites no structure associated with the means or function. Moreover, the parties agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Resp. 9. We find “releasing means” is a means plus function limitation and, based on the plain language of the claim, the recited “releasing means” is a part of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17. Construing a claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) involves two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function; and then (2) determining what structure, if any, disclosed in the Specification corresponds to the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. In conducting this analysis, we may not incorporate structure from the written description beyond that which is necessary to perform the claimed function. See Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,020,129 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,020,129
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.