• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2026 · PGR2025-00027 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 8–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Pet.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329 to institute a post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,920 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’920 patent”), claims 1–20. We issued an Institution Decision (Paper 12) granting the petitioned review. slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “thereby supporting our conclusion that the plain and ordinary meaning of “affordance” in claim 1 refers to an interactive user interface element.” slip op. at 30

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

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Petitioner’s reliance on Low’s” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,966,920 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,966,920
• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2026 · PGR2025-00028 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 8–20 are unpatentable under § 102, § 103, or § 101; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish its limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “1. Legal Standards “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMixed

    “2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Kinetic Concepts, 688 F.3d at 1368). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); accord In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “conclusory statements” amount to an “insufficient articulation[] of motivation to combine”; “instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (quoting In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 36

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionMixed

    “because the “user interface” limitations merely apply the recited abstract idea on a generic mobile device without meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. See 2025 Guidance, at 4–5. For example, these limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the mobile device (or any other computer device), and instead are “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on” the mobile device. Id. Indeed, the ’423 patent specification describes only a generic “swipe-to-pay” feature. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:13–33, Figs. 8C, 10A–10D. This supports our conclusion here that the claim 11 limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (“[T]he specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and “it must describe” slip op. at 108

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptMixed

    “because the “user interface” limitations merely apply the recited abstract idea on a generic mobile device without meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. See 2025 Guidance, at 4–5. For example, these limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the mobile device (or any other computer device), and instead are “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on” the mobile device. Id. Indeed, the ’423 patent specification describes only a generic “swipe-to-pay” feature. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:13–33, Figs. 8C, 10A–10D. This supports our conclusion here that the claim 11 limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (“[T]he specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and “it must describe” slip op. at 108

  Patent outcomesUS 11,972,423 mixed
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,972,423
• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · PGR2025-00028 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds after finding claim 1 more likely than not unpatentable under § 101.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Director may not authorize a post-grant review unless the information in the petition, if unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute a post-grant review as to claims 1–20 of the ’423 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art would have had “an educational background of, or practical experience equivalent to, a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems,” where “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’423 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’423 patent and cited 2 Petitioner states that it “takes no position on the proper priority date for the [c]hallenged [c]laims” and “uses the earliest possible priority date claimed, December 18, 2013,” for purposes of its asserted grounds. Pet. 14. prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–2:21 (stating that “[t]he present application relates to the field of payment processing systems” and describing the functionality of payment accepting units in the “Background” section).” slip op. at 7

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

    “B. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Petitioner states that, “for purposes of [its] Petition, the Board need not construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes, and the claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner agrees that “[n]o constructions are necessary” to decide the issues disputed by the parties. Prelim. Resp. 2–3. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute a post-grant review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelNot reached

    “For the reasons explained below, we conclude, on the merits and based on the current record, that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable as claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Pet. 77–84. Accordingly, we need not determine at this time whether collateral estoppel applies based on the Board’s decision in PGR2021-00093. The parties, however, should address the issue in their papers during trial, with citations to relevant authority. In particular, the parties are encouraged to address (1) how the collateral estoppel requirement that the issue be “identical to one decided in the first action” applies in the context of an asserted ground under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and (2) the parties’ apparent disagreement as to whether collateral estoppel may be applied in such circumstances on a “limitation-by-limitation basis.” See Pet. 72, 75 (quoting Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022)); Prelim. Resp. 20–21; see also Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., – F.4th –, No. 2023-1359, 2025 WL 2178321, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (Dyk, J., dissenting) (“In subsequent Board proceedings, it is well established that collateral estoppel applies to claims adjudicated by the Board to be unpatentable and also to ‘related claims that present identical issues of patentability,’ i.e., patentably indistinct claims. . . . ‘It is well established that patent claims need not be identical for collateral estoppel to apply.’” (citing MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Google, 54 F.4th at 1381)).” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 11,972,423
• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · PGR2025-00027 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding claim 1 more likely than not ineligible under § 101.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “A. Legal Standards — Petitioner’s Burden In a post-grant 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) (discussing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), which is identical to 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3) in requiring petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”). This 2 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’920 patent “would have had an educational background of, or practical experience equivalent to, a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26. Further: “Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. generally. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’920 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’920 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–2:21 (stating “[t]he present application relates to the field of payment processing systems” and describing the functionality of payment accepting units in the “BACKGROUND” section).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner argues “the Board need not construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner argues: “No constructions are necessary to deny institution because denial is warranted for numerous reasons that do not depend on claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 3. However, as discussed below, several of Patent Owner’s arguments seeking to distinguish claim 1 from Low rely on underlying claim construction positions. Except as discussed below in connection with those arguments, we determine no explicit construction is needed to resolve the parties’ controversy as to whether institution should be granted here. 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 12

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionInstituted

    “We determine Petitioner has made a sufficient showing for Step 2A, Prong 1 based on the current record. Petitioner addresses each of limitations [1.2]–[1.14] and explains how they support Petitioner’s contention that the claim, as a whole, is directed to the alleged abstract idea. See Pet. 80–84. For example, Petitioner notes specifically how limitation [1.2], reciting “identifying one or more payment accepting units,” pertains to identifying a merchant, and how limitations [1.6], [1.7], and [1.9] recite user interaction using the mobile device that enables the completion of a purchase. See id. Petitioner thus shows sufficiently how claim 1, by virtue of the limitations reproduced above,5 recites the concept of “identifying a merchant and enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant.” Id. at 80.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 11,966,920
• United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2023 · IPR2023-00858 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Peng qualifies as prior art, so it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenge to claims 1–55.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “remaining limitations. As such, the Petition fails to establish that P3 does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Thus, the Petition fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art. Petitioner’s failure is fatal to all of the Petition’s challenges, each of which relies on Peng as prior art. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that Peng qualifies as prior art to the ’879 patent. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its challenges to claims 1–55 of the ’879 patent. We therefore deny institution of the petitioned inter partes review. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 21

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “Our reviewing court has explained that “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit noted that such support need not rise to the level of disclaimer and that it is possible to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same element. Id. In Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit expanded on the discussion of negative limitations, noting that “properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.” Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357; see also MPEP § 2173.05(i) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023) (stating that, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims”). We agree with Patent Owner that P3 provides support for the subject limitation to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, P3 discloses the use of the Witness application on a mobile device and the Witness application receives sensor data “typical for modern smart-phones.” Ex. 1505, 5:25–35. These sensor/data inputs include G-force/accelerometer, GPS module (speed, location, elevation, direction, etc.), 3D compass, and camera. Id. Additionally, P3 discloses the processing of mobile phone sensor data to derive driving information such as driving speed and G-force. P3 discloses, Another setting that can be controlled in the Settings Screen is the G-force threshold at which the Witness application will assume that a crash has taken place. It is expected that different vehicles and driving styles will need different G-force thresholds to be set to ensure a reasonable sensitivity to crash forces whilst also prevent crash detection false positives.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “3. Conclusion Petitioner does not argue that P3 does not disclose any of the remaining limitations. As such, the Petition fails to establish that P3 does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Thus, the Petition fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art. Petitioner’s failure is fatal to all of the Petition’s challenges, each of which relies on Peng as prior art.” slip op. at 21

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,198,879
• United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 27, 2023 · IPR2023-00912 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–7 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Peng qualifies as prior art to the ’271 patent.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of the petitioned inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “We find P3’s disclosure reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the limitation in claim 1 that requires determining a start of a driving period during which a mobile device is removably attached to a vehicle and the vehicle is in use, based on inputs received by a user interface and sensor data from the mobile device’s sensor set.” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “B. Legal Standards—Priority of Filing Date A U.S. patent application is entitled to assert priority to the filing date of an earlier-filed foreign application “for the same invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 119(a). This requires that the earlier-filed foreign application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. See In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”). “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). The written description “test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1016 (second alteration in original) (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We mostly agree with Patent Owner. First, as a matter of claim construction, we agree with Patent Owner that the claimed “driving score” corresponds to an assessment of what type of driver an individual is. See id. at 28; Ex. 1001, 10:10–17 (stating “driving information can be matched to a particular driver” which is “particularly useful when assessing a risk profile of said driver” and “[t]he driving information may comprise the driving score”), 12:4–9 (stating “[t]he driving score may be used to determine a risk profile for at least one of the vehicle and driver”). However, to the extent that Patent Owner would limit a driving score to a “number” (Prelim Resp. 28), we disagree. The ’271 patent specification does not support such a construction. See Ex. 1001, 10:10–17, 12:4–9.” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,311,271
• United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00769 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–27 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Peng qualifies as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “A. Legal Standards – Priority In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For a claim in a later-filed U.S. patent application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier U.S. or foreign patent application, the earlier application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that, to obtain the benefit of a parent application’s filing date under section 120, “the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Id. (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner contends that “each priority document fails to provide support for at least [1.9]–[1.13] of independent claim 1 (nor the same limitations found in claims 26 and 27) of the ’369 patent.” Pet. 5. While Petitioner arguably provides some explanation for its challenge to limitation [1.9], we observe that Petitioner does not provide any evidence or supporting argument for limitations [1.10]–[1.13]. See Pet. 5–6; Prelim. Resp. 21. As discussed above, we determine that P3’s disclosure reasonably conveys to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of limitation [1.9] of claim 1 that requires “wherein the driving information is derived without data from vehicle sensors.” Ex. 1001, 31:63–64. With respect to limitations [1.10]–[1.13], we determine that the Petition is incomplete and lacks sufficient explanation for Petitioner’s challenge to these limitations.” slip op. at 19

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “Our reviewing court has explained that “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit noted that such support need not rise to the level of disclaimer and that it is possible to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same element. Id. In Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit expanded on the discussion of negative limitations, noting “that properly described alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.” Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357; see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2173.05(i) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023) (stating that, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims”). We agree with Patent Owner that P3 provides support for the limitation in question sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, P3 discloses the use of the Witness application on a mobile device and the Witness application receives sensor data “typical for modern smart-phones.” Ex. 1505, 5:25–35. These sensor/data inputs include G-force/accelerometer, GPS module (speed, location, elevation, direction, etc.), 3D compass, and camera. Id.” slip op. at 15

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

    “written description support for claims 1, 26, and 27, and so fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art. Therefore, we determine Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges of claims 1, 26, and 27, all of which are based on Peng. C. Claims 2–25 Petitioner does not separately dispute that P3 discloses the limitations in dependent claims 2–25. Therefore, the Petition fails to establish that P3 does not provide sufficient written description support for any one of these claims, and so fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art.” slip op. at 21

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,192,369
• United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00519 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–13 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Peng qualifies as prior art, and all four grounds relied on Peng.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “A. Legal Standards – Priority In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For a claim in a later-filed U.S. patent application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier U.S. or foreign patent application, the earlier application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (To obtain the benefit of a parent application’s filing date under section 120, “the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). 35 U.S.C. § 112. “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[ ] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “Our reviewing court has explained that “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit noted that such support need not rise to the level of disclaimer and that it is possible to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same element. Id. In Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit expanded on the discussion of negative limitations, noting “that properly described alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.” Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357; see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2173.05(i) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023) (stating that, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims”). We agree with Patent Owner that P3 provides support for the limitation in question sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, P3 discloses the use of the Witness application on a mobile device and the Witness application receives sensor data “typical for modern smart-phones.” Ex. 1505, 5:25–35. These sensor/data inputs include G-force/accelerometer, GPS module (speed, location, elevation, direction, etc.), 3D compass, and camera. Id. Additionally, P3 discloses the processing of mobile phone sensor data to derive driving information such as the driving speed and G-force. P3 discloses that [a]nother setting that can be controlled in the Settings Screen is the G-force threshold at which the Witness application will assume that a crash has taken place. It is expected that different vehicles and driving styles will need different G-force thresholds to be set to ensure a reasonable sensitivity to crash forces whilst also prevent crash detection false positives. Ex. 1505, 14:19–23. Similarly, as discussed, P3 discloses that “the application may be arranged to detect the vehicle speed, and at a particular speed, switch off the screen entirely. It should be understood that the device will continue to record video, telemetry and other information even when the screen is switched off.” Id. at 15:5–8.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “A. Legal Standards – Priority In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For a claim in a later-filed U.S. patent application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier U.S. or foreign patent application, the earlier application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (To obtain the benefit of a parent application’s filing date under section 120, “the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). 35 U.S.C. § 112. “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[ ] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Id. (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 8

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,633,487
• Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00610 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 103; the contingent motion to amend is denied for substitute claims 16–30.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied

    “that the ’756 Application does not provide written description support for proposed substitute claim 23. See Prelim. Guid. 6–8. Petitioner’s Sur-reply agrees with that preliminary conclusion. See Mot. Sur-reply 1–7. For the following reasons, we now conclude again that the ’756 Application does not provide written description support for the limitation of claim 23 reciting “wherein a first orientation of the first helical coil is different from and perpendicular to a second orientation of the second helical coil.” Mot. App. A (pg. 9).” slip op. at 106

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “relies on as having been allowed due to objective indicia. See Ex. 1006, 7:19–8:60. At a high level, the independent claims each recite a system for hydraulically fracturing an underground well formation comprising at least one pump driven by one or more electric motors, and a variable frequency drive to control the speed of the motor(s) and perform motor diagnostics. See id. at 7:19–33 (claim 1), 7:57–8:10 (claim 10), 8:31–51 (claim 19). None of the parent ’410 patent’s claims recites swivel connections located in the pump’s discharge piping branch as recited in claim 1 of the ’824 patent at issue here. See id. at 7:19–8:60. And, claim 1 of the ’824 patent does not recite an electric motor, or a variable frequency drive, like the parent ’410 patent’s claims do. Thus, even if the prosecution history of the parent ’410 patent establishes a nexus between Clean Fleet product(s) and one or more claims of the ’410 patent, it is not at all clear to us how this nexus might also apply to claim 1 of the ’824 patent. We reached the same conclusion in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 41.” slip op. at 72

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

    “leads to base swivel joint 26. See id. ¶ 14. “The jumper line 20 may comprise any combination of generally straight pipes and/or swivel joints . . . to isolate the base unit 24, and thus the articulated arm 22, from vibration and movement of the pumping unit 14.” Id. ¶ 15. Accordingly, first swivel joint 36 and second swivel joint 38 together “provide five degrees of freedom between the first pipe 34 and the base swivel 26” so “the base unit 24 will not be affected by vibration and movement of the pumping unit 14.” Id. ¶¶ 15–16.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,934,824 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,934,824
• Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLCOther
  PTAB · Apr 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00074 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Original claims 1–13 were canceled by amendment; proposed substitute claims 14–26 were denied because “high pressure” is indefinite under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “original claims 1–13 of the ’732 patent, which are all of the claims challenged in the Petition. See Mot. Caption (“NON-CONTINGENT”), 1 (stating the motion is “Non-Contingent”), 2 (“The claim listing cancels original claims 1–13 . . . .”); Mot. App. A, 1 (stating original claims 1–13 are “Cancelled”); Pet. 17. Petitioner does not oppose this portion of the Motion to Amend. See generally Mot. Opp. Therefore, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original claims 1–13. As a result, we do not reach the unpatentability grounds asserted in the Petition against these original claims.” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “b) Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’732 patent would have either: “(1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production”; or “(2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner utilizes the same formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 13. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. The parties’ agreed-upon formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’732 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “witnesses cannot agree on a numerical definition of “high pressure.” Mr. Marscher says high pressure is between 5,000 psi and 15,000 psi (see Ex. 1030, 111:1–112:3), whereas Mr. Schaaf says high pressure is between 8,000 psi and 12,000 psi and specifically disagrees with Mr. Marscher’s testimony that high pressure can be below 8,000 psi (see Ex. 1031, 43:6–44:13). Although there are overlapping values in the witness testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the testimony does not evidence clear boundaries for how an ordinarily skilled artisan would interpret “high pressure.” See Mot. Sur-reply 6 (citing Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901–02 (2014); Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1371). Thus, the testimony of Patent Owner’s own witnesses is contrary to Patent Owner’s position that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the meaning of “high pressure.” Furthermore, neither Mr. Marscher nor Mr. Schaaf cites any objective evidence to support their respective notions of what “high pressure” might be, in the context of hydraulic fracturing. For example, neither witness cites to any published industry standards to support their respective opinions. This lack of objective evidentiary support weakens the persuasiveness of both witness’s testimony on this issue, especially because their opinions conflict with each other. We are instead persuaded by the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Durham, who testifies that “[t]here is [no] general consensus about the precise boundaries of the term ‘high pressure,’ and different engineers can reasonably come to different conclusions as to the meaning of the term absent further guideposts.” Ex. 1036 ¶ 17; see also id. ¶ 19 (“There is no universally accepted definition of ‘high pressure.’”). Dr. Durham further testifies that “what might be sufficiently ‘high’ pressure for one fracturing application and according to one [person of ordinary skill in the art] may be not ‘high’ enough in another fracturing application and to another [such person].” Id. ¶ 18; see also id. ¶ 19 (“Merely stating that a pump fractures a formation says little to nothing about whether that pump should be deemed ‘high pressure’ or ‘not high pressure.’”).” slip op. at 30

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “The intrinsic record does not “provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art” to determine whether a given pressure is “high pressure” as recited in the proposed substitute claims. See Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1370–71. Nor does the intrinsic record provide guidance to clarify the meaning of “high pressure.” As noted above, the ’732 patent refers only to “high pressure” without qualification or explanation as to how “high pressure” is determined. The prosecution history does not address “high pressure” in any meaningful way and, therefore, also fails to explain what pressures are “high” pressures. See generally Ex. 1003. Thus, the intrinsic record does not explain adequately what pressure(s) qualify as “high pressure,” nor differentiate “high pressure” from other pressures at which hydraulic fracturing can be performed.” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,254,732

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.