- 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 - PTAB · Nov 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00878 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–3 and 11 after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Cleveland or obvious over Nakagawa.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“contentions, the cited portions of Cleveland, and the testimony of Clearwater’s expert), we find, preliminarily, that Cleveland discloses each claim element in the manner recited by claim 1. Thus, on the current record, Clearwater demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that challenged claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Cleveland.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“5 Clearwater argues that Cleveland qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) “based on both its provisional and non-provisional filing dates.” Pet. 17. In support, Clearwater asserts that Cleveland’s provisional (Ex. 1006) is “virtually identical” to Cleveland itself (id. at 18) and submits claim charts to demonstrate that the Cleveland provisional provides written support for: (1) at least claim 1 of Cleveland (id. at 18–21); and (2) the subject matter relied upon in Cleveland (id. at 21–40 (citing Ex. 1006 throughout)). Based on our review of the Cleveland provisional, as well as Clearwater’s claim charts, we are persuaded that the current record demonstrates that Cleveland is prior art to the challenged patent. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“satisfies each claim element as identified above in Section I.D, i.e., elements [1.pre]–[1.6]. See id. at 22–40. Clearwater also submits annotated Figure 3 of Cleveland, reproduced below, to further illustrate the specific laminate structure of Cleveland’s coffee cup. See id. at 39.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“protective layers have “a coat weight of from 5 to 30 lbs/3000 ft2,” Clearwater submits the declaration of its expert, who explains that, because Nakagawa identifies the specific polymers and the thickness of the coat used for the plastic layers and one skilled in the art “would recognize that the disclosed polymers have a given density,” then “[w]ith these known parameters, the coat weight is easily calculated to be 23.04 lbs./ 3000 ft2 — falling squarely within the claimed range.” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–133; Ex. 1008 ¶ 24; Ex. 1024, at 4). At this stage, we find that testimony credible and supported by the evidence presently of record. After reviewing the preliminary record (including Clearwater’s contentions, the cited portions of Nakagawa, and the testimony of Clearwater’s expert), we find, preliminarily, that Nakagawa discloses or otherwise suggests each claim element in the manner recited by claim 1. Thus, on the current record, Clearwater demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that challenged claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Nakagawa. We need not decide Clearwater’s challenge of the dependent claims based on Nakagawa alone nor its challenge of claims 1–3 based on Nakagawa and Tanner. Our analysis of these challenges, in our view, is best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,637,126 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01235 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 6–11, and 14–16 on all proposed grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the §103 ground over Mañosa and Patel.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedPrinted publication not establishedMixed
“[T]here is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under § 42.108(c) or any other authority. . . . [T]he burden is on the petitioner to identify with particularity evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“May” expresses a possibility. The Specification reflects this interpretation of “may” when it states that “[i]n one embodiment, the organic material is not lyotropic. Thus, the organic material may not be a phospholipid.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill would understand from this that the organic material “may not be” a phospholipid if the organic material is not lyotropic. It follows that if the organic material is lyotropic, then the organic material may be a phospholipid. Reading the statement “[t]he organic material may not be . . . a phospholipid” (id. at 8:59–63) in light of the earlier stated possibility that the organic material may be a phospholipid if the organic material is lyotropic, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “may not be” as excluding phospholipids under some conditions, not under all conditions. Taking the Specification’s discussion about phospholipids as exemplifying the permissive nature of the word “may,” we are unpersuaded that in stating that “[t]he organic material may not be [PMMA], a polyvinylidene difluoride-containing polymer, such as [PVDF] or PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, or a phospholipid, such as [DHPE]’” (Ex. 1001, 8:59–63), the specification “contains a clear and unmistakable disavowal of the compounds PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE” and “disclaims the listed compounds” from the “organic material” of the claims under all conditions, as Patent Owner argues. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Moreover, the claims themselves limit the “organic material” only to the extent that it is “barocaloric cooling or heating agent” and can perform in the manner claimed. See Ex. 1001, claim 1, supra. As broadly worded, the claims do not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE per se from the group of organic materials employed by the claimed method. Adopting Patent Owner’s construction would impermissibly import a limitation (i.e., not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE) into the claims. For the reasons stated, at this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner’s broad construction of “organic material.” We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction whereby PMMA, PVDF, PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE are excluded from the scope of the claim term “organic material.” The parties are invited to address this issue further during trial, if desired. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner shows that (a) Mañosa (i.e., inorganic compounds such as Ni-Mn-In, Gd5Si2Ge2, and La-Fe-Co-Si) and (b) Patel (i.e., PVDF-TrFE- CTFE) teach materials exhibiting inverse BCEs. Pet. 59 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1007, pages 4–8; Ex. 1009, 1, 4–5; Ex. 1004 ¶ 108). In our view, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently shows (via the five reasons listed supra) why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the barocaloric cooling or heating agent of Patel for that taught in Mañosa, thereby reaching the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. Cf. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (U.S., 2007) (“The Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”)” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,230,656 - PTAB · Nov 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00884 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–15, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6–11, 14, and 15 are obvious over Aker, Aker ’724, and Thomas.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relating to the ’602 patent would have “a working knowledge of Doppler radar systems,” a “Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing electrical, mechanical, instrumentation engineering or other disciplines related [to] measurement science,” and “specific training or at least one to two years of related work experience with Doppler radar systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill could, alternatively, have a “Master of Science degree in electrical engineering with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal at this time. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. At this stage, and based on Petitioner’s undisputed contentions, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Based on this preliminary record, we agree with Petitioner that its first proposed construction more naturally follows from the claim language and specification. That construction reads the limitation as requiring a “a radar transceiver configured to transmit and receive radar beams” either “in a front zone . . . or in a rear zone,” but does not require a single transceiver configured to transmit and receive radar beams in both the front and rear zones. See Pet. 6. Based on this record, the specification supports this approach because it describes separate transceivers operating in the front zone and rear zone of the patrol vehicle. See Ex. 1001, 4:29–5:24; see also Fig. 2 (showing front radar transceiver 12 associated with first radar beam 42 and separately showing rear radar transceiver 14 associated with second radar bean 44).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Aker, Aker ’724, and Thomas in the manner Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 9–13. Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing on these issues, based on the current record, for several reasons. First, Patent Owner premises its arguments on detailed assertions as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the teachings of the references, and then includes detailed calculations based on those teachings. See Prelim. Resp. 24–36. None of these assertions are supported by any testimony from one of ordinary skill in the art, and, on this record, amount to mere attorney argument. See id. For example, even if Patent Owner’s calculations are arithmetically correct, Patent Owner does not explain or provide evidence that a skilled artisan would gauge the accuracy of GPS for law enforcement based on Patent Owner’s asserted calculations and “baseline” assumptions. See id. at 28–29. While expert testimony is not required at any stage of these proceedings, Patent Owner’s arguments here fail to undermine Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which include currently unrebutted testimony from one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Pet. 9–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–33, 35–40). Second, the specifics of Patent Owner’s arguments do not justify denial of institution, based on the current record. Patent Owner does not dispute that using GPS to determine the speed of a vehicle as Thomas teaches could be easily incorporated into Aker’s system. Instead, Patent Owner focuses almost entirely on the lack of accuracy when using the GPS approach. As Petitioner points out, the claims do not require a specific level of accuracy and appear to allow for some degree of inaccuracy. See Prelim. Reply 1–2. In addition, Patent Owner does not argue for a claim construction that requires a specific level of accuracy. Prelim. Resp. 17–21. Even if accuracy concerns militate against the proposed combination to some degree, Patent Owner does not assert, with probative evidence, that a specific level of accuracy must be achieved in this art and how the proposed combination fails to meet that standard such that use of GPS for speed readings would be rejected despite their ready availability. See id. at 24–36. These arguments, based on the current record, do not undermine Petitioner’s reasons for its proposed combination. Final resolution of these highly factual disputes based on interpretations of the references and the standards in the art are best resolved after further development during trial.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Fourth, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s teaching away argument, based on the current record. See Prelim. Resp. 28–36. Patent Owner does not support its argument with citations to Aker disparaging the use of GPS to obtain speed, or the inaccuracy of such a system generally, or citations to Thomas disparaging the accuracy of its GPS approach or its suitability for use in a patrol car. See id. Instead, Patent Owner appears to argue that the Aker references disclose two methods for obtaining speed, show a preference for one method as more accurate, and Thomas’s GPS method provides no more accuracy than the method Aker disparages. See id. Patent Owner’s arguments rely on inferences drawn by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the references and error calculations to determine the suitability of GPS-based speed readings. See id. While these arguments may ultimately prevail, they do not appear to reach the threshold of “teaching away” from Petitioner’s proposed combination. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,703,602 - PTAB · Oct 31, 2024 · IPR2024-00858 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 5–7 and 16–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 and 16–19 are unpatentable over Samartgis and at least claims 5 and 19 over Leoncavallo.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel district court action, and, in doing so, relies heavily on the district court’s scheduled trial date of September 22, 2025. See Prelim. Resp. 51, 54. While the district court’s scheduled trial date may be earlier than the Board’s projected deadline for a final written decision here, CamelBak’s reliance on that date is misplaced. The Office takes the position that a district court’s scheduled trial dates are “unreliable and often change” and that a more reliable indicator is the district court’s “median time-to-trial for civil actions,” which, in this case, would place the district court’s trial date after the projected deadline of any final written decision here. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022) (“Director’s Interim Procedure”), at 8–9. Thus, CamelBak’s reliance 5 US D586,184 S, issued Feb. 10, 2009 (Ex. 1006, “Miller”). on the district court’s scheduled trial date has no bearing on whether we should discretionarily deny institution. Of greater relevance is Trove’s express stipulation not to pursue the same grounds in the district court action as advanced in the petition or any ground that relies on the prior art references cited in the petition. See Pet. 100. Although not exactly a Sotera stipulation, the Office nonetheless recognizes that such stipulations further mitigate concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between us and the district court. See Director’s Interim Procedure, at 7–8. Thus, given Trove’s stipulation and the fact that the district court’s median time-to-trial is after the projected deadline of our final written decision here, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree that Samartgis is the substantially the same as the corresponding design patent cited during prosecution, mainly because the design patent fails to show the closure retention mechanism that is clearly shown and described in Samartgis and goes to the very heart of Trove’s showing of anticipation and obviousness. Compare Ex. 1004, Figs. 3–5 (showing lug members 15, 16 and ramp sections 23, 25, 27), with Ex. 2001, Figs. 1–8 (omitting any depiction of lug members or ramp sections). Thus, Samartgis clearly was not considered. And, although Leoncavallo and Miller may arguably have been considered during prosecution, “[w]hen instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 42 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). As such, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 325(d). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Trove proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products . . . [and that] [m]ore work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–30). CamelBak appears to agree. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (“Patent Owner assumes Petitioner has correctly stated the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not set forth its own definition.”). At this stage, we see no reason to depart from Trove’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’252 patent.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“At this stage, we do not see the need to resolve the § 112(f) issue in light of Trove’s express and unrebutted showing that the prior art teaches sufficiently analogous structure to that identified in the ’252 patent for performing the disputed functional limitations of the claimed “closure retention mechanism.” See Pet. 35 (asserting that “[Samartgis’s] lug members 15 and 16 also are at least equivalent to the structure identified in the specification (i.e., the two or more spaced-apart tabs on the handle)” because “[l]ike the opposed tabs of the ’252 patent, the lug members 15 and 16 are projections that extend from the inner surface of the handle to engage the closure.”). Indeed, at this stage, CamelBak chooses not to address Trove’s showing in this regard, instead arguing that “the construction of ‘closure retention mechanism’ is irrelevant because [Trove] fails to show lug members 15 and 16 are configured to meet other limitations of claims 5 and 19.” Prelim. Resp. 20 n.7. That said, to the extent either party believes it is necessary for final resolution of patentability, they should explore the § 112(f) issue further during the trial phase.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,905,252 - Jeisys Medical Inc. v. Serendia, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00463 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 2–6, 8, 9, 13–16, and 18, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claims 2, 8, and 13 are anticipated by Mehta.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Videndum clarified the Board’s application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. For instance, in Ford, the Director explained that “[u]nder existing Office policy and precedent, the Board does not recognize a ‘significant relationship’ between parties [i.e., serial petitioners] having different accused products that merely engage in court-ordered pretrial coordination.” Ford, at 9 (emphasis added). And, in Videndum, the Director further explained that where “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum, at 6–7. Thus, per Ford and Videndum, we will not discretionarily deny a later petition in view of an earlier petition where the earlier and later petitioners are neither the same party nor have a significant relationship. After reviewing the record, we find that no significant relationship exists with Cartessa to justify application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. Contrary to Serendia’s assertions about the joint submissions of Jeisys and Cartessa in the parallel ITC proceeding (see Prelim. Resp. 8–10), the relevant facts and circumstances here are akin to those in Ford. More specifically, like the “court-ordered” coordination of the petitioners in Ford, the collaboration of Jeisys and Cartessa as co-respondents in the ITC proceeding was mandated by the rules of the ITC proceeding, and, thus,” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We agree with Jeisys. Mehta is not substantially the same as Mehta ’705. What Mehta ’705 omits, but Mehta includes, is an embodiment comprising “graphical user interface 320” and “tissue characteristic indicator 350” that allows a user to monitor the needle’s “location” in the tissue so as to decide when the needle is placed at a “desired depth.” Ex. 1006, 32:46– 13 US 8,540,705 B2, issued Sep. 24, 2013 (Ex. 1011). 14 Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). 33:29, Figs 10A–10F. Nowhere do we discern a similar embodiment in Mehta ’705. At best, Mehta ’705 discloses a “display screen” for displaying a “variety of information to the physician . . . such as treatment delivery settings, electrode impedance, electrode temperature, tissue temperature, treatment duration, power delivered, energy delivered, etc.” Ex. 1011 (Mehta ’705), 29:44–58, Figs. 10A, 10B. But, notably lacking from Mehta ’705 is any disclosure of determining the “depth” and “location” of the needle’s placement in the tissue, let alone means for doing so, which Mehta discusses at length and upon which Jeisys relies to meet the “desired distance” limitation. See Ex. 1006, 32:46–33:61; Pet. 27–28. Because Mehta includes disclosure relevant to the disputed “desired distance” limitation that is absent from Mehta ’705, Serendia fails to satisfy the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Wolfspeed, Inc. v. The Tr. of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761, Paper 13, at 7–8 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2023) (Vidal, K.) (reference not “substantially the same prior art” when it includes disclosure relevant to unpatentability grounds not present in references previously before the Office). And to the extent Serendia makes a similar argument with respect to the asserted secondary references of Na, Lee, and Livneh, it is of no consequence given Serendia’s failed showing with respect to the primary reference of Mehta.15 Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Jeisys proposes, and Serendia agrees, that we should adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as defined in the parallel ITC proceeding, that is, (1) 7–10 years of experience with developing and/or using treatment systems for delivery of electromagnetic radiation energy to skin or other tissues, and (2) a related graduate engineering degree or M.D. . . . [and] may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also would have taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others on the team when solving a technical problem. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005, at 14); Prelim. Resp. 33 (accepting Jeisys’s definition of the level of skill in the art). For purposes of this proceeding, we see no reason to depart from that definition, as it appears consistent with the level reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need not formally construe the “desired distance” limitation in order to resolve whether institution is appropriate. That is because, on the current record, the asserted prior art satisfies the “desired distance” limitation regardless of which parties’ proposed construction we adopt. 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)). Nonetheless, the parties are free to further explore the appropriate construction of “desired distance” at trial, in particular, whether the plain language of the claims limits their scope to extendable needles (as opposed to fixed needles), and whether construing the “desired distance” limitation as being based on a user’s selection improperly reads a preferred embodiment into the claims.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,869,812 - Jeisys Medical Inc. v. Serendia, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00384 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 11–18 after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 11 is anticipated by Mehta.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“Videndum clarified the Board’s application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. For instance, in Ford, the Director explained that “[u]nder existing Office policy and precedent, the Board does not recognize a ‘significant relationship’ between parties [i.e., serial petitioners] having different accused products that merely engage in court-ordered pretrial coordination.” Ford, at 9 (emphasis added). And, in Videndum, the Director further explained that where “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum, at 6–7. Thus, per Ford and Videndum, we will not discretionarily deny a later petition in view of an earlier petition where the earlier and later petitioners are neither the same party nor have a significant relationship. After reviewing the record, we find that no significant relationship exists with Cartessa to justify application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. Contrary to Serendia’s assertions about the joint submissions by Jeisys and Cartessa in the parallel ITC proceeding (see Prelim. Resp. 10– 11), the relevant facts and circumstances here are akin to those in Ford. More specifically, like the “court-ordered” coordination of the petitioners in Ford, the collaboration of Jeisys and Cartessa as co-respondents in the ITC proceeding was mandated by the rules of the ITC proceeding, and, thus,” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Jeisys proposes, and Serendia agrees, that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had (1) 7–10 years of experience with developing and/or using treatment systems for delivery of electromagnetic radiation energy to skin or other tissues, and (2) a related graduate engineering degree or M.D. . . . [and] may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also would have taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others on the team when solving a technical problem. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50); see also Prelim. Resp. 32 (accepting Jeisys’s definition of the level of skill in the art). For purposes of this proceeding, we adopt the parties’ assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We need not formally construe the “desired distance” limitation in order to resolve whether institution is appropriate. That is because, on the current record, the asserted prior art satisfies the “desired distance” limitation regardless of which parties’ proposed construction we adopt. 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)). Nonetheless, the parties are free to further explore the appropriate construction of “desired distance” at trial, in particular, whether the plain language of the claims limits their scope to “extendable” needles, and whether construing the “desired distance” limitation as being based on a user’s selection improperly reads a preferred embodiment into the claims.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We disagree with Serendia’s analysis of Mehta. As Jeisys correctly explains, Mehta discloses the “desired distance” limitation even assuming Serendia’s construction of that limitation, i.e., that the needles are extendable to a depth selected by the user. See Pet. 33. Indeed, although Mehta may not use the term “desired distance” expressly, it comes about as close as one would expect from an anticipatory disclosure. For example, as Jeisys notes, Mehta discloses an embodiment that includes “depth markings” on the needles (i.e., probes) that allow the user to determine a desired depth of the needles— The electrodes of the probe array can also include any number of visually distinguishing features (e.g., depth markings, colors, shades, etc.) that enable a physician to observe proper placement. . . . This ensures that the probe is not driven too far into tissue. Alternatively, the probe can be marked with one or more features that allow the physician to determine the depth of insertion of the probe. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 13:37–45 (emphases added)). Notably, as Jeisys also explains, Mehta discloses another embodiment, depicted in Figures 10A–F, having a graphical user interface 320 (“GUI”) that displays the actual and target depths of needles so as to avoid placement of the needles in an undesired region. See id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:38–39, 12:5–8, 32:63–33:43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–104). The GUI, as described, “can provide information for a physician (or other medical staff) to monitor various treatment parameters as well as other information regarding the placement of the array 108 or probes 104 when inserted in the tissue” and “maintain visual contact with the treatment device and tissue being treated.” Ex. 1004, 11:1–13. To do so, the GUI incorporates a “tissue characteristic indicator (whether visual, virtual, audible, or other feedback)” that allows the user to monitor the needle’s actual location in the tissue and advance the needle a desired distance for providing treatment— FIG. 10B illustrates a tissue characteristic indicator showing a virtual depiction 350 of the depth or location of the probe array. . . . [T]he virtual depth/location depiction 350 can illustrate an actual placement of the probe array 340. . . . [T]he system can be configured to show (or the system can have an option to show) additional probe array information. For example, the virtual depth/location depiction 350 can also show a desired probe location (e.g., array 342 can represent the desired depth of placement for providing a treatment). . . . As shown by FIG. 10B, providing the virtual depth/location depiction 350 allows the physician to not only identify whether the array is located within the desired tissue layer but also allows the physician to observe the angle of the electrode array in tissue. . . . Therefore, the physician would be informed that further advancement of the probes is necessary to place the probes within the second layer 326 (which corresponds to the dermal layer). Id. at 32:46–33:29 (emphases added); see also id. at 33:57–66 (further describing “virtual depth/location depiction 350”).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,320,536 - Jeisys Medical Inc. v. Serendia, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00383 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 13 and 14, finding a reasonable likelihood that Mehta anticipates them.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“At the outset, we note that the Director’s decisions in Ford and Videndum clarified the Board’s application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. For instance, in Ford, the Director explained that “[u]nder existing Office policy and precedent, the Board does not recognize a ‘significant relationship’ between parties [i.e., serial petitioners] having different accused products that merely engage in court-ordered pretrial coordination.” Ford, at 9 (emphasis added). And, in Videndum, the Director further explained that where “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” See Videndum, Paper 12, 6–7. Thus, per Ford and Videndum, we will not discretionarily deny a later petition in view of an earlier petition where the earlier and later petitioners are neither the same party nor have a significant relationship. After reviewing the record, we find that no significant relationship exists with Cartessa to justify application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. Contrary to Serendia’s assertions about the joint invalidity defense of Jeisys and Cartessa in the parallel ITC proceeding (see Prelim. Resp. 9–10), the relevant facts and circumstances here are akin to those in Ford. More specifically, like the “court-ordered” coordination of the petitioners in Ford, the collaboration of Jeisys and Cartessa as co-respondents in the ITC proceeding was mandated by the rules of the ITC proceeding, and, thus, does not alone create the type of “significant relationship” contemplated by Valve. See Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ford, at 3; Exs. 1028, 1029); see also Prime Time Toys LLC v. Spin Master, Inc., IPR 2023-01339, Paper 12, at 19–20 (Vidal July 9, 2024) (“Prime Time Toys”) (“The parties’ collaboration as co-respondents in the ITC investigation does not by itself support a finding of a “significant relationship.”). As such, Jeisys’s knowledge of the prior art asserted in the ITC proceeding and its collaboration with Cartessa on a joint invalidity defense does not create a significant relationship where such knowledge and collaboration arises from the rules of the ITC proceeding itself.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Jeisys proposes, and Serendia agrees, that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had (1) 7–10 years of experience with developing and/or using treatment systems for delivery of electromagnetic radiation energy to skin or other tissues, and (2) a related graduate engineering degree or M.D. . . . [and] may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also would have taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others on the team when solving a technical problem. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 48); see also Prelim. Resp. 33 (accepting Jeisys’s definition of the level of skill in the art). For purposes of this proceeding, we adopt the parties’ assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We need not formally construe the “desired distance” limitation in order to resolve whether institution is appropriate. That is because, on the current record, the asserted prior art satisfies the “desired distance” limitation regardless of which parties’ proposed construction we adopt. 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)). Nonetheless, the parties are free to further explore the appropriate construction of “desired distance” at trial, in particular, whether the language of the claims limits the scope of claims 13 and 14 to “extendable” needles, and whether construing the “desired distance” limitation as being based on a user’s selection improperly reads a preferred embodiment into the claims.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We disagree with Serendia’s analysis of Mehta. As Jeisys correctly explains, Mehta discloses the “desired distance” limitation even assuming Serendia’s construction of that limitation, i.e., that the needles are extendable to a depth selected by the user. See Pet. 26–27. Indeed, although Mehta may not use the term “desired distance” expressly, it comes about as close as one would expect from an anticipatory disclosure. For example, as Jeisys notes, Mehta discloses an embodiment that includes “depth markings” on the needles (i.e., probes) that allow the user to determine a desired depth of the needles— The electrodes of the probe array can also include any number of visually distinguishing features (e.g., depth markings, colors, shades, etc.) that enable a physician to observe proper placement. . . . This ensures that the probe is not driven too far into tissue. Alternatively, the probe can be marked with one or more features that allow the physician to determine the depth of insertion of the probe.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,775,774 - Bowmar Archery LLC v. Matthew FuttereInstitutedPTAB · Jul 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00401 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review on all challenged claims based on a reasonable likelihood that claim 11 is anticipated by Vandewater.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“first and second blade members towards the extended positions.” Ex. 1001, 6:40–41. For this claim limitation, Bowmar relies on Vandewater’s disclosure of “a retaining mechanism . . . such as a biasing element with a ball bearing or a spring wheel” that is used to “retain the blades in a centered position when in their deployed position.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:55–8:2). Bowmar also provides supporting testimony from its expert to show how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Vandewater’s teaching of the biasing element in conjunction with the blade members depicted in Figure 16. See id. at 46. Futtere responds by acknowledging Bowmar’s reference to “a generic paragraph in Vandewater in which a biasing member is discussed to deploy the blade members.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (emphasis added). Nonetheless, Futtere disputes Vandewater’s so-called “generic” disclosure because “Vandewater fails to provide any enablement of such an idea as the text fails to clarify and the figures . . . fail to disclose such an embodiment.” Id. We reject Futtere’s reasoning, as it amounts to conclusory attorney argument lacking in meaningful evidentiary support. On the other hand, Bowmar provides unrebutted expert testimony to support finding that Vandewater’s biasing member is part of the embodiments of Figures 7–10 and Figures 15–20 relied upon by Bowmar and that such biasing member is used “to deploy the blade members,” as admitted by Futtere. Thus, in the absence of rebuttal evidence from Futtere, we find that Bowmar adequately explains how Vandewater’s biasing element biases the blade members to a deployed, i.e., extended, position, thereby satisfying the “biasing” limitation of claim 11. c. Conclusion For at least the foregoing reasons, Bowmar demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least independent claim 11 is anticipated by Vandewater.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Bowmar does appear to dispute Futtere’s proposed construction of “blade member,” asserting that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term does not require that it have a sharp edge, as proposed by Futtere. See Pet. 49. As discussed below, the challenge on which we institute indisputably includes a “blade member” under Futtere’s proposed construction. Thus, we do not need to provide an express construction of “blade member” at this stage. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)). The parties are free to further explore the meaning of this term at trial.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Bowmar proposes that the claim term “ferrule” should be construed as a “generally cylindrical body.” Pet. 19. Futtere responds with proposed constructions for two other claims terms, namely, that “blade member” be construed as “hav[ing] a cutting edge or flat sharp part” and that “biasing member” be construed as “a structure that pushes against another structure.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:9–10, 3:35–44, 4:5–6, 4:21–24, 4:58–62; Ex. 1003, 3:37–38, 3:63–66; Ex. 2006). At the outset, we note that Futtere does not dispute Bowmar’s proposed construction of “ferrule” and, in turn, Bowmar does not dispute Futtere’s proposed construction of “biasing member.” See Prelim. Resp. 11; Pet. 46. Thus, for purposes of institution, we adopt the parties’ proposed constructions of those claim terms.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We disagree with Futtere’s assertions. At the outset, we note that the claims merely require that the pivotal connection be located at the “forward end” of the blade members, not their forwardmost end. Vandewater’s Figures 7 and 10 clearly depict pivot connection 216 at the forward end of blade members 212 and 213. Under no circumstances do we discern how one skilled in the art would view those figures as depicting the pivot connection at a midpoint of the blades, as Futtere contends. And, without question, Bowmar relies on the embodiment of arrowhead 210, as shown in Figures 7–11, by referencing Vandewater’s disclosure of “[t]he pivot connection between blades 212 and 213 and body 214.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:33–39, Figs. 7–11). Moreover, Bowmar notes Vandewater’s disclosure that similar components of arrowhead 210 (the embodiment in Figures 7–11) may be applied to arrowhead 310 (the embodiment in Figures 15–20). See id. at 40 (citing 8:49–52). With that in mind, we find that Vandewater clearly contemplates embodiments of the arrowhead wherein a pivotal connection is located at the forward end of the blade members. See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that, although the anticipating prior art reference did not describe a specific example of a computer program that used two differently described functions, i.e., tools, together, “[the reference] did contemplate combining the disclosed functionalities.”). Futtere’s failure to address Vandewater’s express teaching of locating the pivot connection at the forward end of the blade members is fatal to its argument.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,043,177 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00300 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–38 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the Carr grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may be instituted only if it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’770 patent’s challenged claims. We institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“Here, however, the February 18, 2022 filing date of Krupa (Ex. 1003, code (22)) is indisputably after the priority date for the claims recited in the ’770 patent, which Petitioner concedes is at least May 17, 2021 (Pet. 4, 14, filing date of the Krupa Provisional to qualify Krupa as prior art. See Pet. 4; 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2). Under subsection 102(d)(2), to qualify as prior art, a reference patent or published patent application is considered effectively filed as of the filing date of its provisional application only to the extent that the provisional “describes the subject matter” relied on in the reference patent document. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2). We cannot presume that the Krupa Provisional describes the subject matter in Krupa that the Petition relies on, however. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380 (“[B]ecause the PTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a reference patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application.”). The burden to make this showing falls squarely on Petitioner. But Petitioner does not explain how the Krupa Provisional supports the relevant subject matter relied on in Krupa. In fact, Petitioner did not introduce the Krupa Provisional into the record, so it would not be possible to do so.9” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“But Patent Owner’s arguments do little to undermine the rational underpinning of Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Carr and Beuterbaugh because they improperly focus on what Carr and Beuterbaugh disclose individually, rather what they disclose in combination; and they appear to improperly rely on the bodily incorporation of Beuterbaugh’s pulsing method into Carr. Petitioner contends the motivation for combining Beuterbaugh and Carr in the manner claimed comes from the fact that valve sequencing generally (rather than Beuterbaugh’s specific pulsing method for “overlap of fluid flows to each well [to] be controlled to optimize the downhole pressure waves and minimize the surface impacts.” Pet. 63, 66 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 24; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 496–512). Patent Owner does not dispute, at this preliminary stage, that Beuterbaugh suggests valve sequencing was a known technique that can enhance well operations; nor does Patent Owner dispute that Carr discloses a control system that can control the sequence of opening and closing valves in response to determining that the fluid communicated via the manifold has satisfied one or more conditions. Thus, after considering what Carr and Beuterbaugh teach as a whole, we are persuaded at this stage that Petitioner’s reasoning for combining those reference in the manner claimed has a rational underpinning, which is supported sufficiently by the cited evidence of record.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), the terms in the challenged claims carry their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of art at the time of the invention, in view of the patent’s specification and prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Here, both parties contend that the challenged claims in this proceeding do not need to be construed further. Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 25. This is so, according to the parties, because a resolution in this proceeding does not hinge on a dispute about how the parties are interpretating any particular claim term or phrase. Id. Furthermore, neither Id. And we need only construe terms that are in controversy and only to the extent needed to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim construction is for “resolution of disputed meanings”). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, the ordinary and customary meaning of each of the challenged claim terms and phrases, viewed in the proper context of the intrinsic record, applies without any further construction.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,560,770
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.