- Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00705 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–9 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over Goubet; proposed substitute claim 21 is denied as indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, but Patent Owner “reserves the right to address [the definition] should new issues materialize.” PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner did not address this issue in the Sur-reply. As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“The record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration, as asserted in Petitioner’s overall argument. See Pet. Reply 1–2. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited general discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1; see also Pet. Reply 2 (arguing that “Dr. Micklow’s declaration is premised on understandings of claim scope that are inconsistent with the constructions advanced by both of the parties” (emphasis added)). Instead, we read the cited portions of Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also Pet. Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1046, 112:4–12, 113:13–20, 115:15–18). Next, we turn to each of the four specific claim terms that Petitioner highlights in its further arguments.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“B. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, the Board interprets claim language using the same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose explicit constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 10–11; PO Resp. 5. Based on the complete record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Florida Litigation a Joint Claim Construction statement that included stipulated claim constructions and disputed claim constructions for terms in the challenged patent as well as the ’449 patent and the ’918 patent. See Ex. 1018, Exhibit A (Stipulated Claim Constructions), Exhibit B (Disputed Claim Constructions). The parties stipulated to the construction of the terms “fluid dispersion” and “baffle” as recited in the challenged claim. See id., Exhibit A.10 10 When staying the Florida Litigation, the District Court cancelled the scheduled claim construction hearing. See ECF No. 67 (April 8, 2025) (granting joint motion to stay); ECF No. 68 (April 8, 2025) (cancelling the The stipulated construction of “fluid dispersion” merely restates the express definition of “fluid dispersion” from the challenged patent (although the definition is not cited or discussed in the parties’ filing). Compare Ex. 1018, Exhibit A, with Ex. 1001, 3:8–20. Similarly, the stipulated construction of “baffle” essentially parrots one sentence in the challenged patent (again, not cited or discussed in the parties’ filing). Compare Ex. 1018, Exhibit A, with Ex. 1001, 7:57–59. To the extent necessary, we determine that the complete record supports the parties’ stipulated constructions of “fluid dispersion” and “baffle,” and we apply those constructions below.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,527,094 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,527,094 - Medtronic Corevalve LLC / Edwards Lifesciences Corporation et al. v. Colibri Heart Valve LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · IPR2021-00775 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Garrison; the Board did not reach the Andersen/Limon grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, requesting an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). On March 10, 2021, we instituted an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition. Paper 11. Within one month of institution of review, on April 6, 2021, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences LLC filed a petition in IPR2021-00775 substantively identical to the Petition in this proceeding, along with a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2021-00775, Papers 2 and 3. We instituted trial in IPR2021-00775 and granted the motion joining Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences LLC as petitioner to this proceeding. Paper 17.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, requesting an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). On March 10, 2021, we instituted an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition. Paper 11. Within one month of institution of review, on April 6, 2021, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences LLC filed a petition in IPR2021-00775 substantively identical to the Petition in this proceeding, along with a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2021-00775, Papers 2 and 3. We instituted trial in IPR2021-00775 and granted the motion joining Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences LLC as petitioner to this proceeding. Paper 17.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“with the features recited in claim 1, aside from the use of pericardial tissue. See generally Resp. Patent Owner also does not dispute that the use of fixed pericardial tissue in the construction of a valve means was well known in the art to a person of ordinary skill.9 Id. Because Petitioner’s arguments are supported by the cited evidence of record, which we adopt as our own findings, we are persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence shows that” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentable
“with the features recited in claim 1, aside from the use of pericardial tissue. See generally Resp. Patent Owner also does not dispute that the use of fixed pericardial tissue in the construction of a valve means was well known in the art to a person of ordinary skill.9 Id. Because Petitioner’s arguments are supported by the cited evidence of record, which we adopt as our own findings, we are persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence shows that” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,125,739 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,125,739
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.