• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–8 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 4–6 as obvious over Huang2 and Kuo, and claims 7–8 as anticipated by Huang2; claims 2–3 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) “would be a Ph.D. student with a minimum of two years of experience in their faculty advisor’s laboratory” and would have an understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C7). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–29. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”). Importantly, the Specification does not treat the existence of minor peaks as prerequisites for the existence of major peaks. Indeed, the Specification does not discuss “minor peaks” at all. See generally Ex. 1001. Likewise, none of the claims of the ’227 patent, whether challenged or unchallenged, recites “minor peaks” or any additional peaks beyond the disputed “major peaks.” Id. at 23:30–24:42. Nor does the Specification include an example of FFT analysis results in which the average of the peaks therein is calculated and those higher than the average are identified as major peaks.8” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner has the better position. Huang2 teaches crosslinking and provides a reason for doing so (stability). In particular, Huang2 states: “To better mimic skin ECM, electrospun collagen fibers have been fabricated, however, the rapid degradation and poor mechanical properties determine that either crosslinking or combination with other materials is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold.” Ex. 1005, 1791 (emphasis added). It is true that, in describing work actually carried out, Huang2 states that blending with PCL was performed and does not mention crosslinking. See id. at 1792 (“Nanofibrous matrices of PCL and Collagen at a weight ratio of 3:1 were fabricated using electrospinning as previously described.”). However, the prior art – here, Huang2 – is not limited to that which it describes having created. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (“a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples”); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Huang2 teaches two stabilization methods when using collagen in scaffolds. Huang2 states that one or the other “is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold” (when using collagen), but it does not preclude or teach away from using Patent Owner-cited testimony of Dr. Mikos is not as definitive as Patent Owner suggests; Dr. Mikos’s testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would not have done both.” Ex. 2015 ¶64 (emphasis added). The bottom line is that Huang2 teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art two ways to stabilize scaffolds/matrices comprised of collagen, provides a reason for doing so (stability), and does not teach away from using both. We are persuaded that a “scaffold comprising crosslinked fibers comprising collagen” would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Huang2.” slip op. at 33

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

    “We are not persuaded by Appellant’s citations to either reference. As discussed above, Petitioner’s Ground 1 is premised on a person of ordinary skill in the art altering the native flat sheet structure of Huang2 by rolling it into a jelly-roll structure as taught by Kuo. See Pet. 41 (Beginning its claim 2 arguments with the following: “Claim 1 is obvious for the reasons expressed above in § X.A., supra, which are incorporated herein.”); see also Pet. Reply 17 (“[B]ased on the explicit teaching of Kuo, a POSA would have been motivated to take the electrospun flat scaffold made by the techniques of Huang2, seed it with the desired cells, and roll it to treat a tendon and ligament.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the paragraphs of Kuo that Petitioner cites for disclosing “scaffold sheets,” explicitly describe rolling them into jelly-roll like structures. See Ex. 1018 ¶7 (stating that “the sheet is spirally contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct”), ¶22 (describing a method comprising “forming a tissue construct by contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct” and implanting it in a patient). Petitioner fails to argue that that “one or more elongated sheets” recited in claim 2 would encompass the rolled structure of its proposed modification. Nor does Petitioner articulate a claim construction argument that could support such an argument. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 would have been obvious over Huang2 and Kuo.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 11,318,227 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,318,227
• Synaffix B.V. v. Hangzhou Dac Biotech Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2025 · IPR2022-01531 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 29–31 are unpatentable; claims 25 and 32–34 were not shown unpatentable, and the motion to exclude was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • RemandOther

    “review of claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24–26, and 29–34 of the ’682 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”), 1, 3. Patent Owner, Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”). We initially determined that the information presented in the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and did not institute inter partes review. Paper 17. Petitioner requested Director review of our decision denying institution (Paper 18 (“Request”)). The Director delegated review of the decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”). Paper 19. Patent Owner was granted the option to file a response to Petitioner’s Request (Paper 22 (“Request Resp.”)). The Delegated Review Panel vacated our decision and remanded the case to this panel with a revised claim construction for claim 1. Paper 23 (“DRP Dec.”). On August 30, 2024, we instituted an inter partes review after remand from the Director. Paper 25 (“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner subsequently filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 31, “Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 36, “Reply”), Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 44, “Sur-reply”), and Petitioner filed a Sur-sur-reply (Paper 48, “Sur-sur-reply”).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsOther

    “I. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1089 and 1090. Paper 50. As we did not rely on either of Exhibits 1089 or 1090 in deciding this matter, Patent Owner’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 96

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

    “For these reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments and cited evidence also” slip op. at 31

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

    “function as R2, and the ethyl group may function as R4, which can be a linear alkyl having 1–6 carbon atoms. We note that claim 3 permits R5 and R6 to be absent. For these reasons, the arguments presented in the Petition demonstrate that claim 3 would have been obvious over Singh’s Compound 3 when modified in view of Harris.” slip op. at 73

  Patent outcomesUS 10,131,682 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,131,682
• Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01292 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 17–21 are unpatentable over Ohel; claims 5 and 11–16 were not shown unpatentable over Ohel or Nigawara.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Williams, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We have considered the parties’ citations to the specification and find examples that support Petitioner’s view that the term “entity” is broad enough to encompass dispatchers and individual users. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:52–4:5, 7:18–20, Fig. 1). However, we find no disclosure that redefines “entity” or excludes dispatchers and individual users from the category of “entity.” Patent Owner’s best examples (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–21, 3:59–62) are no more than non-limiting examples. On the complete record, we conclude that “entity” is broad enough to include dispatchers and individual users.” slip op. at 20

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

    “have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot reached

    “have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,324,802 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,324,802
• 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
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Digital Stream IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01749 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6–13, 20, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2 and 3 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not establish portability or handheld use.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Petitioner bears the burden of correctly identifying the real parties-in-interest, “[w]e generally accept the petitioner’s identification of real parties-in-interest at the time of filing the petition.” See Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp., Case IPR2014-01254, at 6 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2015) (Paper 35) (citing Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,695 (Aug. 14, 2012)). Here, Petitioner identifies in its Petition the real party-in-interest: “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Unified Patents Inc. (‘Unified’ or ‘Petitioner’) certifies that Unified is the real party-in-interest.” Pet. 1. Such identification gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that Petitioner has complied with its obligation to identify all real parties-in-interest. See Zerto at 6–7. Patent Owner recognizes that “it [is] incumbent on the patent owner to come forward with some rebuttal evidence.” PO Resp. 52. In response to Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest, Patent Owner contends that “this is not an instance where a petitioner’s certification in a petition can be taken at face value” because “evidence proffered by [Petitioner] in support of its position was withdrawn deliberately.” Id. at 53. We do not, however, require evidence beyond a petitioner’s identification of real parties-in-interest in the absence of rebuttal evidence that such identification is erroneous or incomplete. Petitioner’s withdrawal of Exhibit 1012 from the record does not constitute such rebuttal evidence. In view of the foregoing, we find that the circumstances here do not raise sufficient doubt about whether Petitioner has satisfied its obligation to name all real parties-in-interest. Therefore, we determine that the Petition should not be dismissed on this basis.” slip op. at 7

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

    “by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer,” however, and clearly set forth a definition of the claim term in the specification. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Petitioner proposes an express construction for the claim term “transceiver.” Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not propose an express construction for any claim term. See generally PO Resp. In light of the parties’ arguments, we determine that no term requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Rovira teaches each of the recited claim limitations, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In that regard, Petitioner directs us to Rovira’s teaching that “it is highly desirable to communicate program content information” because “having such information as music title, composer, artist and record label is vital” to music lovers. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:30–32, 2:5–10); see also Ex. 1003, 1:32–35 (“Frustration of customers, and possible loss of revenue due to subscription cancellation can occur if a subscriber has no method of knowing the title, composer or artist of the particular selection of music.”). Petitioner argues it, thus, would have been obvious to modify Schotz’s system to incorporate a signal that includes both audio data and program data, as taught by Rovira. Pet. 17; see also, e.g., id. at 21 (“[O]ne would have been motivated to (1) modify Schotz’s transmitter 4 to transmit the digital audio signal of Rovira . . . and (2) modify Schotz’s receiver 6 to receive this digital audio signal.”); id. at 23 (“[T]his modification would result in Schotz’s user interface switch 18 selecting the digital audio data . . . within the digital audio signal [of Rovira].”); id. at 25 (“It would have been obvious to utilize the tuner 110 of Rovira in Schotz for [tuning] to frequencies that Schotz is receiving based on its use of Rovira’s digital audio signal. . . . Schotz is essentially doing this already, i.e., tuning to a frequency associated with audio data.”); id. at 27 (“[I]t would have been obvious to modify Schotz to utilize Rovira’s disclosed demodulator 125 to extract the selected digital audio data and the audio program information from the carrier wave, as taught by Rovira.”); id. at 28–29 (“It would have been obvious to modify Schotz to include the digital to analog converter 160 disclosed in Rovira. . . . The receiver 6 of Schotz would necessarily need a digital to analog converter when using the digital signals disclosed in Rovira so that the user can hear the selected music.”). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning, including specifically the quoted material in the preceding string citation to the Petition, for modifying Schotz’s system to include Rovira’s signal as well as various components for processing such a signal. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. We note that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and, in modifying Schotz’s system to include Rovira’s signal, would have made any necessary additional modifications such that Schotz’s system could process appropriately Rovira’s signal. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,757,913 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,913
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2015 · IPR2014-01351 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 60, 61, 70–74, and 77 are unpatentable as obvious over Blank, Kakinami, and Schofield; the other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Nranian testifies that the proposed modification would require substantial reconstruction or a redesign of Blank or a change in the principle of operation. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 106–110. Dr. Nranian does not elaborate on this opinion or explain what redesigns and reconstructions would be required. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Kazerooni that designing a housing to hold components therein is a basic engineering concept within the level of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of, and as evidenced by, the disclosures of Blank and Schofield. Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 21–23. Blank discloses that circuit board 150 may be configured for a supplemental vision system. Ex. 1005, 7:51–59. TRW proposes to use this principle of operation and include Kakinami’s camera with Blank’s module 26. Pet. Reply 15–17. As discussed above, Blank and Schofield disclose reconfiguration and redesign of accessory housings, both internally and externally, to accommodate a variety of different accessories. Ex. 1005, 3:8–11, 7:6–10; Ex. 1006, 9:24– 36. Kakinami also discloses mounting of video camera 20, which includes lens 14, video device 15, and signal processing unit 16. Ex. 1010, 2:15–26, Fig. 2a. Physical incorporation is not required to demonstrate obviousness. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1573.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “sophistication of the technology, all as addressed herein, it is submitted that the person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’590 Patent at the time of the invention would have had at least the qualifications of or equivalent to either a undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or mechanical engineering with course work or research in automobile accessory systems with at least two years of work making automobile accessory systems. Ex. 1012 ¶ 30. This discussion appears in Dr. Kazerooni’s Declaration in a section entitled “LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL.” Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 29–30. This definition of a skilled artisan in paragraph 30 immediately precedes Dr. Kazerooni’s discussion of the “STATE OF THE ART IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME.” See id. ¶¶ 31–48. This definition of a skilled artisan in paragraph 30 of Dr. Kazerooni’s Declaration matches TRW’s definition of a skilled artisan in the Petition and is cited as the basis of TRW’s definition of a skilled artisan. See Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 29–30); Ex. 1012 ¶ 30. Another definition of a skilled artisan appears in Dr. Kazerooni’s Declaration in a section entitled “SUMMARY OF OPINIONS.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 10. It is unclear what use, if any, is made of this definition. Accordingly, we understand TRW and Dr. Kazerooni to assert the same definition of a skilled artisan, which definition appears at page 17 of the Petition and paragraph 30 of Dr. Kazerooni’s Declaration. Dr. Kazerooni identifies November 4, 1999 as the priority date of the ’590 patent invention. Ex. 1012 ¶ 26. Magna does not dispute this date. PO Resp. 57. Dr. Kazerooni testifies to the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. Id. ¶ 30. Dr. Kazerooni provides a detailed discussion of the state of the art at the time of the invention by discussing the disclosures of Blank, Kakinami, Schofield, Carter, Anderson, and Klappenbach. Id. ¶¶ 31– 48. These references were filed and issued before November 4, 1999. TRW” slip op. at 32

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

    “We interpret “bus communication” as “information transferred over a set of signal lines between devices connected to the signal lines.” We are not persuaded that a bus must include an interface. The IEEE Standard 969 Interface Devices (Ex. 1004) defines a bus in that context. The’590 patent discloses a CAN bus without disclosing an interface. Ex. 1002, 4:15–17. An ordinary meaning of “bus” includes “[a] set of signal lines to which a number of devices are connected and over which information is transferred between them.” See ANSI/IEEE Standard 1196-1987 IEEE Standard for a Simple 32-Bit Backplane Bus: NuBus (Ex. 3001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We construe “cluster of individual sensors” as “a group of individual sensors or components of individual sensors positioned close together.” Pet. 6–7; Prelim. Resp. 11–12. This interpretation is consistent with an ordinary meaning of “cluster” which includes “a group of things or people that are close together” (Pet. 6) and the claims, which recite “a cluster of individual sensors resides on or near said in-cabin surface of said windshield.” This interpretation is consistent with the ’590 patent specification, which discloses that housing 10 is divided by wall 16 into adjacent first and second compartments 18, 20. Ex. 1002, 3:29–31, Fig. 2. One embodiment contains rain sensor 26 in first compartment 18 and printed circuit board 30 bearing a compass sensor 30 in second compartment 20. Id. at 5:62–6:12, 7:52–55, Figs. 2, 8. The ’590 patent specification discloses that the housing may accommodate a plurality of electrical accessories. Id. at 6:42–44. The ’590 patent further discloses that component 30 “can be any of a number of sensors or circuits which can be made small enough to fit in the compartment 20.” Id. at 7:64–67 (emphasis added). Preferably, component 30 is provided as a unitary module received in compartment 20. Id. at 7:67– 8:1. An ordinary meaning of “any” is one or more. Thus, the ’590 patent specification discloses that component 30 may include more than one sensor.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,513,590 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,513,590
• C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2015 · IPR2014-00727 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 are unpatentable as obvious over Betts; claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 were not shown unpatentable over Betts and the Orange Book.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The term “enclosure unit” encompasses lavatories, aircraft closets, and aircraft galleys. Given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to further construe this term. 2. “lavatory stall unit” Whereas independent claim 1 recites “enclosure unit,” independent claim 9 recites “lavatory stall unit.” Patent Owner proposes the latter be construed as “a single room, enclosed on all sides, having a toilet and washbasin and large enough to fit a person inside.” PO Resp. 12. For reasons similar to those with respect to “enclosure unit,” we reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “lavatory stall unit.” Further, given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to provide an express construction for this term. More specifically, Petitioner does not rely on any particular prior art lavatory. Indeed, Petitioner does not rely on either of the asserted references to teach a “lavatory stall unit,” instead relying on the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “These proposed constructions would render the claim language “in a vertical plane” meaningless because tilting a seatback between an upright position and another position would have no effect on the shape of the aft surface of the seatback. Therefore, we do not adopt them. See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (proposed construction that rendered a portion of the claim language meaningless held improper). Rather, we construe “in a vertical plane” according to its ordinary and customary meaning and consistent with the specification, which contrasts a forward wall in a vertical plane (see Fig. 1—the prior art) against a recessed forward wall (see Fig. 2—an embodiment of the claimed invention). In sum, the full limitation at issue encompasses an aft portion (in the case of claim 1) and an aft portion with an exterior aft surface (in the case of claims 9, 21, and 31) that has a flat shape but which is not within a vertical plane. This is within the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification, which discloses a substantially conforming recessed forward wall positioned behind the seat (see Ex. 1001, Fig. 2), as opposed to a wall that is flat in a vertical plane (see id. at Fig. 1). 4. “forward wall portion is shaped to substantially conform to the shape of the” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “As discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 of the ’838 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Betts. But, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Betts and the Orange Book, as Petitioner has not established that the evidence relied upon within the Orange Book is a printed publication.” slip op. at 3

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

    “motivated to efficiently use space on an aircraft, as evidenced by Betts, “to provide more room for passengers.” Id. ¶ 65 (quoting Ex. 1003, 1:6–7). Mr. Anderson further testifies that Betts teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art a recessed forward wall configuration that uses space more efficiently than a flat configuration, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the recessed configuration to other aircraft enclosures, including lavatories. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been discouraged from attempting to tailor Betts’ divided space design to any lavatory stall unit (or any other enclosure unit) because Betts required separate enclosures divided both functionally and spatially.” PO Resp. 29. But, Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability is not premised on whether it would have been practical or possible to convert Bett’s “divided space” (i.e., its overhead coat compartment and floor luggage space) into a lavatory. Rather, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Bett’s recessed forward wall design to other aircraft enclosures, including a lavatory. Pet. 19 (“One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the McDonnell Douglas patent [i.e., Betts] are equally applicable to the forward walls of other enclosure units, such as lavatories or galleys.”) (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 65–68); cf. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the 15 features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,590,838 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,590,838
• Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2014 · IPR2013-00290 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–16, and 20–22 are unpatentable as anticipated by Arend; claims 2, 3, 17, and 19 were not shown unpatentable, and the motion to amend was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. We are not persuaded that the ’536 patent limits the required movement of the “rod that is movable” to axial movement of the entire rod. For its proposed construction, Patent Owner relies on figures and description from the ’536 patent that are explicitly described as exemplary embodiment or embodiments. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 6C, 7B, 8B, 12:59–64); PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 7A, 10:26–30, 13:30–37). The ’536 patent, however, clearly identifies Figure 7A (and the rest of the figures), as well as the corresponding description, as exemplary embodiments of the invention, stating explicitly that “[r]eference herein to details of the illustrated embodiments is not intended to limit the scope of the claims.” Ex. 1001, 16:4–8; see also 7:20–25. The testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, George Markus, is based on these same portions of the ’536 patent that describe exemplary embodiments. Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 34–38. Patent Owner does not, however, point us to any language of the ’536 patent that evidences a clear intention to limit the claims to an exemplary embodiment. Thus, we are not persuaded that the language in the specification pointed to by Patent Owner limits the scope of the term at issue here. See, e.g. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”); DSW v. Shoe Pavilion, 537 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen claim language is broader than the preferred embodiment, it is well-settled that claims are not to be confined to that embodiment.”).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed modifications improperly limit the claim terms. See Reply 6–9. Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that while the patent discloses that it is preferable to engage the lock member teeth in a lower flex zone, it does not restrict the invention to that situation. Id. at 7. For example, Mr. Markus admits that there is some benefit of reduced wear even if only some, but not all, of the teeth of the lock members engage in the relatively lower flex zone. Id. (citing deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Markus, Ex. 1011, 219:14–22, 222:2–12; 224:7–11, 225:12–25). Thus, a broader interpretation of the term “relatively higher flex zone” is also consistent with the ’536 patent’s stated objection to reduce wear. Even more telling, the ’536 patent itself states, in its description of an exemplary embodiment, “the complementary lock member 512 is lockably engaged with the lock member 510 at a position that is proximate, at least in part, to the zone 514.” Ex. 1001, 14:11–16 (emphasis added). We, therefore, are not persuaded that the ’536 patent “specifically disavows” engagement outside the relatively higher flex zone, as asserted by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 36–37. To the contrary, we are persuaded that the ’536 patent explicitly contemplates that the teeth may, at least in part, not engage within the relatively higher flex zone. We also agree with Petitioner that the claim language does not require comparison of adjacent flex zones. Id. (citing Ex. 1011, 227:10–24, 230:10–231:3). While the word adjacent is recited in the claims (e.g., “the relatively lower flex zone of the platen being a portion of the platen adjacent to the rod”) it refers to a flex zone being adjacent the rod, not another flex zone. See Ex. 1011, 227:10–24. Patent Owner’s reliance on Figure 8D as supporting the proposed restriction does not persuade us otherwise. As discussed above, Figure 8D describes an exemplary embodiment, and Patent Owner does not point to any language indicating that the claims should be limited to this embodiment. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s unexplained and unsupported statement that “[o]nly by comparing zones that are adjacent, can such location of the engagement [in the lower flex zone] be accurately pinpointed.” PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 45–47).5” slip op. at 22

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

    “member is engagable with the lock member within a relatively lower flex zone of the platen” (“the engagement limitation”).6 In the Decision to Institute, we adopted a broadest reasonable construction of this term encompassing the situation in which the complementary lock member and the lock member are capable of interlocking or meshing at least in part within or proximate to a relatively lower flex zone of the platen. Dec. to Inst. 10–12. Neither party explicitly addresses the broadest reasonable determine which is the relatively high flex zone and which is the relatively low flex zone.”). The other cited paragraphs are not related to the statement they are cited to support. See id. ¶¶ 46–47. Nor could we find, upon review of the complete declaration, any other support for Patent Owner’s assertion. 6 Independent claims 1 and 12 recite this limitation as quoted. Independent claim 18 includes a similar limitation, “engaging a lock member associated with the rod with a complementary lock member associated with the platen at a position located proximate to a relatively lower flex zone of the platen.” construction of this claim term in their post-institution briefing. We conclude that no additional construction of the term is necessary.” slip op. at 24

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

    “reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, an anticipatory reference must show all of the limitations of the claims “arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claims.” Id. at 1370; see Finisar Corp. v DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334–37 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Petitioner asserts that Choi’s teeth 38 correspond to the claimed lock member, teeth 48 correspond to the claimed complementary lock member, and tie bar 20 corresponds to the claimed rod. Pet. 36. In addition, according to Petitioner, Choi’s securing/clamping assembly 22 corresponds to the claimed clamp assembly. Id. Petitioner reasons that these elements of Choi are part of the machine disclosed in Glaesener because of the following sentence: “The tie-bar nuts can be secured to the rear wall 16 by any appropriate mechanism, such as the pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism described in [Choi].” Pet. 25, 36. Petitioner, however, does not explain how the relied upon elements of Choi’s device secure the tie-bar nuts of Glaesener to rear wall 16 of Glaesener’s platen. In fact, Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure in Choi of tie-bar nuts or their equivalent. See Pet. 32–41. Moreover, there is no dispute that Choi does not use the term “pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism.” Tr. 16:7–10. And Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence as to what part of Choi is included in the term “pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism.” See Tr. 16:7–12 (arguing for the first time that what “pineapple and tooth mechanism” in Glaesener refers to is Figure 3A in Choi with no reference to the record); Tr. 60:14–22 (explaining that Petitioner does not provide evidence of what the pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism is). Without such explanation and supporting evidence, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that the various portions of Choi and Glaesener, on which it relies, are combined in the same way as recited in the challenged claims. See Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that although the prior art reference could be said to contain all of the elements of the claimed invention, it did not anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because it “disclose[d] an entirely different device, composed of parts distinct from those of the claimed invention, and operating in a different way to process different material differently.”). The Federal Circuit has expressly warned against treating patent “claims as mere catalogs of separate parts” without regard for the “part-to-part relationships set forth” therein. NetMoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1370 (quoting Lindemann, 730 F.2d at 1459).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,670,536 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,670,536

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.