- Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00435 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Malecki; the contingent motion to amend was denied as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“construction more persuasive because it is grounded in, and most consistent with, the specification of the ’731 patent. Contrastingly, Petitioner does not offer a specific interpretation of “inner walls” and its arguments are generally based on extrinsic evidence, including claim charts from the related district court litigation (Pet. 15), arguments from related proceedings (Pet. Reply 3), and the prior art reference (Malecki) relied on to challenge the claims (id. at 3–4). Petitioner criticizes the Patent Owner’s position but provides no express interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms;” instead, Petitioner argues why Patent Owner’s proposed construction is wrong. Pet. Reply 4–5. Dr. Nicosia does not expressly define or otherwise persuasively explain the definition of “inner walls” in his declarations either. See generally Exs. 1037, 1095, and 1109.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’731 patent would have possessed the knowledge and skill of an engineer or similar professional 5 The parties have not introduced evidence of secondary considerations in this proceeding. with at least an undergraduate degree in engineering, or a physician having experience with designing medical devices. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and we adopt it based on the final record before us. It is also consistent with the level of skill evidenced by the references.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id. Finally, Petitioner seems to recognize that a modification would be” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,271,731 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,271,731 - K/S Himpp v. III Holdings 4, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00496 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Topholm and Michael because the cited art did not teach adjusting a hearing aid profile.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The problem we find with this position is that the Petitioner is reading claim elements into the description of these references. Patent Owner points out that the profiles are not being adjusted, but rather being selected from twenty-four previously stored profiles. Resp. 30–31. While the ear module operational profile changes, we observe that this is because it is using a different profile, which was just uploaded from the control unit. The act of moving the finger around on the screen to us perhaps appears to change the profile, when it is in fact moving through a set of preexisting profiles and uploading them to the hearing aid instead, changing operation of the hearing aid itself but not adjusting the profile itself. Michael states: This permits the user to select a hearing profile by simply moving visual indicator 924 over main region 922 while listening to a sound stream broadcast by ear 35 module 10; the sound stream being heard by the user reflects the hearing profile corresponding to the current position of the visual indicator 924 in real-time. Ex. 1005, 8:32–37.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“4 Petitioner also relies upon the declaration testimony of Dr. Robert E. Morley, Jr. (Ex. 1002). Both references appear to be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We find Dr. Morley, by virtue of his education and experience, qualified to testify to the subject matter of this proceeding. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–14 and Exhibit A thereto. We are cognizant of Patent Owner’s suggestion that we give his testimony “little, if any, weight” because of the similarity of the testimony with Petitioner’s arguments and discrepancies between it and his deposition testimony. PO Resp. 34–36. We give Dr. Morley’s testimony appropriate contextual weight herein based upon the content of the testimony itself, and any contrary testimony in Exhibit 2006. We decline to assign generally no weight to his testimony, however.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“These underlying factual considerations consist of: (1) the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,”5 (2) the “scope and content of the prior art,” (3) the “differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” and (4) “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness such as “commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.”6 KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18). 5 Petitioner defines the level of ordinary skill in the art as someone with a B.S. degree in electrical or computer engineering, or the equivalent, and at least two years of experience in the design of audiological products. Pet. 7-8 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not challenge this level. PO Resp., passim. The references in the record tend to support a finding that this is the appropriate level.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 8,761,421 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,761,421 - Tietex International, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 27, 2016 · IPR2014-01248 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch because the petitioner did not establish the claimed thermal protective performance value.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, in order to prevail, Petitioner must provide evidence establishing that the claimed TPP values are inherent in the prior art. Petitioner cannot, as an examiner can, establish unpatentability of the challenged claims based on the presumption that the structure of fabric that results from the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch would necessarily possess the claimed properties. Allowing Petitioner to rely solely on a presumption of inherency would improperly shift the burden to Patent Owner to establish that the claimed properties are not necessarily present in the prior art. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Appeal Decision establishes “that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to construct a flame retardant, intumescent fabric in accordance with the teachings of the prior art” with the claimed TPP value of at least 4.5 as Petitioner contends. Pet. 16.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s positions, as well as their supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 of the ’639 patent, and claims 2– 10, 13–16, and 19–22 that depend, directly or indirectly, therefrom, would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. Independent claims 11, 12, and 17 also require a TPP value of at least 4.5. Ex. 1001, 12:47–13:20, 14:1–18. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we also determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 12, and 17, and dependent claim 18, would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. D. Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness Patent Owner contends that secondary considerations of non- obviousness, including unexpected results, long-felt but unsolved need, and commercial success of the patented product “compel a determination of nonobviousness.” PO Resp. 49; see id. at 49–59. As discussed above, we find that Petitioner has not established that claims 1–22 of the ’639 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. Thus, we need not address Patent Owner’s evidence regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In our judgment, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence in the Reply are outside the scope of a proper reply because they do more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner did not establish that fabrics made by the combination inherently would have the claimed TPP value; rather, they attempt to provide new evidence that was not set forth clearly in the Petition as to why the fabric resulting from the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch necessarily would have the claimed TPP values. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to serve this evidence on Patent Owner, Patent Owner was denied the opportunity to file responsive evidence. Consideration by the Board of the arguments in the Reply and evidence presented in the Horrocks Declaration in support thereof would be unfair to Patent Owner. Petitioner could have presented this argument and evidence with the Petition, and has not contended or offered any evidence to show otherwise. Because Petitioner belatedly presented these new arguments and evidence to make its case that the TPP value is dictated by the structure of the fabric, we decline to consider the portions of the Reply and the Horrocks Declaration on this issue. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767. Patent Owner had a chance to, and in fact did, cross-examine Dr. Horrocks, but had no further briefing opportunity to challenge Petitioner’s evidence. Although Patent Owner did file observations regarding the cross-examination of Dr. Horrocks, such observations are not designed for submitting substantive arguments. See id. at 48,768 (“An observation (or response) is not an opportunity to raise new issues, re-argue issues, or pursue objections.”). Considering the new arguments and evidence at this late stage would not serve the interests of justice. We have, however, reviewed and considered the arguments in the Petition and evidence therein, and are in agreement with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided adequate explanation or evidence to support its contention that the claimed TPP values are inherent in the prior art.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness Patent Owner contends that secondary considerations of non- obviousness, including unexpected results, long-felt but unsolved need, and commercial success of the patented product “compel a determination of nonobviousness.” PO Resp. 49; see id. at 49–59. As discussed above, we find that Petitioner has not established that claims 1–22 of the ’639 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. Thus, we need not address Patent Owner’s evidence regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,501,639 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,501,639 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 23, 2015 · IPR2014-00587 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that Hughes and Abraham qualify as prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construction, in light of the Specification, of “contents of the packet” in step c is the header and/or payload of the packet. Petitioner’s construction is supported, sufficiently, by the ’694 patent, itself, which discloses embodiments of selecting access rules based upon the header and/or payload of the packet. The ’694 patent discloses a first embodiment in which the firewall selects a rule based on header parameters only, and discloses that, based on the header parameters, the packet may be passed or dropped. See Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 35–37, 40–43, col. 3, ll. 10–12, Fig 1 (path formed by steps 101, 102, 103, and 104). The ’694 patent also discloses that an access control proxy selects a rule based on an analysis of the payload of a single or multiple packets. Id. at col. 3, ll. 4–8, 18–22, 30–32, col. 4, ll. 28–34, 38–40, Fig. 1 (path formed by steps 106 and 107). The ’694 patent further discloses alternate embodiments in which the “access control proxy selects an access rule that pertains to the packet based both on an analysis of the payload and the header parameters of the packet” (Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 38–41) and the “access rule is retrieved based upon a combination of the contents and header parameters of the packet” (id. at col. 4, ll. 36–38).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“To establish an actual reduction to practice, the patentee must prove that he (1) constructed an embodiment or performed a process that meets all the claimed limitations of the invention, and (2) determined that the invention worked for its intended purpose. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The essential inquiry here is whether the advance in the art represented by the invention . . . was embodied in a workable device that demonstrated that it could do what it was claimed to be capable of doing.” Scott v. Finney, 34 F. 3d 1058, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Farrand Optical Co. v. United States, 325 F.2d 3278, 333 (2d Cir. 1963)). “In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, an inventor’s testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence. . . . [A] ‘rule of reason’ analysis is applied to determine whether an inventor’s testimony regarding reduction to practice has been sufficiently corroborated.” Cooper, 154 f.3d at 1330 (citation omitted); see also Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (corroboration requirement “arose out of a concern that inventors testifying in patent infringement cases would be tempted to remember facts favorable to their case by the lure of protecting their patent or defeating another’s patent”). The sufficiency of corroboration is determined according to a “rule of reason.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This, however, does not dispense with the requirement that some independent evidence provide corroboration. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The requirement of “independent” corroboration requires evidence other than the inventor’s testimony. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291–92 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“of the evidence, that the challenged claim is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden includes, inter alia, showing that any reference on which it relies is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1576 (holding that accused infringer “bore the burden of persuasion . . . on all issues relating to the status of [the asserted reference] as prior art”). Hughes and Abraham presumptively constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or 102(e) because their filing dates are prior to the ‘694 patent’s earliest effective filing date, giving rise to Patent Owner’s burden of coming forward with evidence supporting a date of invention before September 9, 1998. Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1576–77; see Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that when party challenging validity came forward with art that is prior to the challenged patent’s application date, the patentee has the burden of going forward with evidence that “the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art”). Upon consideration of the all the evidence, we are persuaded that Patent Owner has met its burden of coming forward with sufficient evidence to corroborate independently inventor Mr. Dutta’s testimony that the inventors of the ’694 patent reduced to practice the claimed invention “at least as early as early 1996 but no later than June 11, 1996” (PO Resp. 36). Thus, we are not persuaded that Hughes and Abraham are prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or 102(e). C. Obviousness over Hughes and Abraham Petitioner fails to demonstrate that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Petitioner has not demonstrated that Hughes and Abraham are prior art.” slip op. at 18
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 602. Pet. Mot. 4–5; Pet. Mot. Reply 1–3. FRE 602 states that “[a] witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. Exhibit 2006 is the Declaration of Partha Dutta. According to Petitioner, in paragraphs 22, 23, and 26, Mr. Dutta testimony contains statements that require an understanding of the proper legal scope of the ’694 patent, but there is insufficient evidence to support a finding Mr. Dutta has personal knowledge of that proper legal scope of the ’694 patent. Id. at 4. We dismiss Petitioner’s motion to exclude paragraphs 22, 23, and 26 paragraphs of Exhibit 2006 as moot because we do not rely upon the statements made in these paragraphs that Petitioner alleges to require an understanding of the proper legal scope of the ’694 patent in reaching our decision. Although we cite to paragraphs 22, 23, and 26 of Ex. 2006 above, we only rely upon other statements in those paragraphs, which do not address the legal scope of the ’694 patent, such as “the prototype code is no longer available.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 26.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 6,826,694 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,826,694
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.