- PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01070 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“As correctly noted by Petitioner (see Prelim. Reply 1), the Guidance Memo is “binding agency guidance.” Guidance Memo at 3. “[T]the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Id. at 7. The Guidance Memo makes no exception for parallel litigation in which expert reports have been exchanged or litigation with a third party involving the challenged patent. Nor has Patent Owner identified any instance in which the Board has determined there to be such exceptions to the Director’s guidance. Indeed, Patent Owner admits that it “is unaware of any post- [Guidance] Memo decision discretionarily denying institution in these circumstances.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. Accordingly, pursuant to the Guidance Memo, we decline to exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“h. Conclusion Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is anticipated by Brunton.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or manufacturing engineering; mechatronics; electrical engineering plus coursework in mechanical engineering, manufacturing engineering, or mechatronics; or a similar technical degree.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–31). Petitioner contends that “[w]ork experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–31). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition or proffer a definition of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. We find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’174 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require an express construction to resolve the challenges here.” Pet. 10. Petitioner notes that “the ’174 patent describes a number of claim terms, many in quotation marks, by what the terms refer to or may refer to” and asserts that “[t]hese descriptions in the specification are consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of these claim terms.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s contentions or proffer any constructions of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this time, we determine that no express construction of any term is necessary. We note that this determination does not preclude the parties from arguing their proposed constructions of the claims during trial. Indeed, the parties are hereby given notice that claim construction, in general, is an issue to be addressed at trial. A final determination as to claim construction will be made at the close of the proceeding, after any hearing, based on all the evidence of record. The parties are expected to assert all of their claim construction arguments and evidence during the trial, as permitted by our rules.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,801,174 - DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. Digital Broadcasting Solutions, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00976 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable over Casagrande and Russ and Dow; claim 17 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jeffay, Petitioner proposes that a” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. “a first period of time” Patent Owner contends that the term “first period of time,” recited in limitation 1[d][i], would be understood “to start after transmission of the entire ‘video program’ to the DVR.” PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 47). Patent Owner refers to claim 1 and its recital that the video program is provided “in its entirety.” Id. (citing limitation 1[d][ii]). Patent Owner argues that “[i]n order to ‘provide said video program in its entirety’ from ‘said memory device,’ the entire ‘video program’ must be stored in the ‘memory device,’ which is only possible after transmission of the entire ‘video program’ to the DVR.” Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 47). Patent Owner contends that in light of dependent claims 6 and 14, the “first period of time” must start after the transmission of the entire video program. Id. at 5–6 (quoting claim 6 (“wherein said first period of time is a period of time that is less than one week from said transmission of said video program”); claim 14 been transmitted.”)). Additionally, Patent Owner refers to the prosecution history of the ’710 patent: a digital video recorder (“DVR”) that stores a video program and plays at least a portion of the video program back at a later time (e.g., a time more convenient to the user of the DVR, etc.) . . . In a first state, the DVR is configured to play the program as it was originally recorded (e.g., with both the program and auxiliary data). In a second state, the DVR is configured to play the program data without the auxiliary data (or a portion thereof) . . . To this end, the claimed invention provides that if the video program is being watched within a first period of time (e.g., within a day or two of the video program being transmitted to the DVR, etc.), then the video program will be played back in its entirety (e.g., including both program and auxiliary data). PO Resp. 6 (quoting Ex. 1003, 108–109). Based on this passage, Patent Owner asserts that the “first period of time” must start after transmission of the entire video program. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 49). Patent Owner argues that the referenced statement in the prosecution history is “clear and unambiguous.” PO Sur-reply 3. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s interpretation of the term” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“specific reasoning to combine Casagrande and Russ to be persuasive. See PO Resp. 23–24. Dr. Jeffay testifies that “Casagrande acknowledges that one concern expressed by content providers is the decreasing value of interstitial content over time, particularly because commercials may become less relevant to the user or may expire.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 117 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:5–13 (“[T]he supplemental content 602 may also be selected to replace a commercial with a timelier commercial from the same advertiser. For example, a department store may have originally advertised a sale during the original broadcast of the show, but that particular sale may have since ended.”)). Accordingly, the evidence supports that Casagrande identifies that the earlier playback of commercials has value, which provides support” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsDecided for petitioner
“ix. Conclusion Patent Owner presents no evidence of objective indicia of” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,929,710 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,929,710 - Iriusrisk, Inc. v. Threatmodeler Software Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · IPR2023-00821 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable as anticipated by Jones; claims 2 and 4–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Jones, Zheng, and Keenan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“9 In arguing that Jones does not disclose a “predefined interrelated group” of threat model components, Patent Owner, in a footnote, alleges that the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, is “tainted by bias” arising from his “personal and professional connections” to Petitioner. PO Resp. 27 n.4; see PO Sur-reply 21–22. Patent Owner cites no authority to show that such connections necessarily render expert testimony biased, and identifies no actual testimony of Mr. Hurlbut that it alleges to be driven only by bias. On the other hand, Petitioner submits that Mr. Hurlbut also has personal and professional connections to Patent Owner—it’s a small world. See Pet. Reply 24 (“Mr. Hurlbut personally knows Mr. Agarwal, [Patent Owner’s] CEO and inventor of the ’008 patent.”). In this case, we assess the credibility of both parties’ experts based on the plausibility of and support for their testimony, and weigh such testimony accordingly. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) at 32 (“[T]he credibility of experts often turns less on demeanor and more on the plausibility of their theories.”), 35 (“The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.”); see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019).” slip op. at 37
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 10,699,008 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,699,008 - PTAB · Nov 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00834 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (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). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“anticipated by Sonti. Pet. 3. To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims to find anticipation. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In evaluating anticipation, it is permissible to take into account not only the literal teachings of the prior art reference, but also the inferences the skilled artisan would draw from it. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. At Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the “dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference”). As such, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“b. Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to topically administer 1% tapinarof composition once a day to treat mild to severe plaque psoriasis in view of Sonti’s teaching to apply its compositions (including 1% tapinarof compositions) in various application frequencies (including once daily) to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Pet. 29–30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184, 187–188; Ex. 1005 Abstract, ¶¶ 55, 196, 288, 387).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsInstituted
“d. Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Patent Owner asserts that, although the “Petition notes the patent’s ‘surprising[] and unexpected[]’ finding that once daily application of 1% tapinarof cream was just effective as twice daily application, . . . the Petition does not analyze, as the law requires, this surprising, unexpected finding in its obviousness arguments.” Prelim. Resp. 52. We are not persuaded by this argument. Immediately after the Petition’s acknowledgement that “[t]he specification [of the ’088 patent] contends that it was ‘surprisingly’ found that once daily application was just as effective as twice daily,” the Petition notes that, “[h]owever, during prosecution the examiner cited a set of prior art by Chen et al. disclosing treating plaque psoriasis by topically applying a composition containing 1% tapinarof once a day.” Pet. 1 (footnote omitted). Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner counters “Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” by referring to the Chen references cited during prosecution, but asserts that “Chen . . . does not undermine Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” because “Chen discloses applying a composition containing 1% mixture of cis and trans 3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropylstilbene, and not one containing 1% tapinarof (3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropyl-trans-stilbene).” Prelim. Resp. 52–53.16 As 16 Patent Owner refers to its earlier discussion on this issue. Prelim. Resp. 53 (“As already discussed . . .”). That earlier discussion is with respect to the Chen references cited in Sonti (i.e., Exs. 1012 & 1013), not the Chen 40” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,590,088 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Iriusrisk, Inc. v. Threatmodeler Software Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00656 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Keenan did not disclose the claimed stored threats, and the obviousness combinations did not establish the mapping limitations or a reason to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“construction of “threat,” which we find in the context of the ’366 patent does not encompass “risk.” See supra § III.D.3.a.1 (discussing “‘Threats’ versus ‘Risks’”). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s premise that “risk” includes “threats” or knowing risk allows for determination of threats is false, and belied by the parties’ experts who do not disagree on this distinction, namely that “risk” is not a “threat,” but rather represents the likelihood of a threat occurring compounded by the impact of such a threat on a given system (discussed above). See Ex. 2002, 24:3–25:5, 31:5–33:2 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, agreeing that “Risk = Likelihood x Impact”); Ex. 2009 ¶ 80; PO Sur-reply 9–10. Thus, we find unavailing Petitioner’s attempt to walk backwards from Keenan’s explicit disclosure of “risk” modeling into an anticipatory (explicit) disclosure of stored “threats” that may give rise to such risk. Viewing Keenan in the light agreed upon by the parties’ experts, where “risk” is a product of the “likelihood” of a threat occurring and the “impact” of such a threat on a given system, persuades us that although Keenan discloses “risk,” “types of risk,” and “risk ranking” (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 16:21–63), Keenan uses such “risk” as a given value without explicitly disclosing any underlying stored threats or use thereof. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 112 (“Keenan does not disclose a system for measuring risk. The risk for objects is determined before the objects are imported into the [Integrated Object Environment]. Keenan does not make that measurement.”). Indeed, in order to “store” “threats” in “one or more databases” as recited in claim 1, such “threats” must be identified (i.e., known) at some level of specificity to the system. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that Keenan explicitly discloses using “threats” or “storing” an identified “threat,” let alone storing such “threat” in a database along with its association with a particular threat model component, and even more so with a threat model component that itself is correlated with a third-party diagram component as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’366 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Hurlbut (Ex. 1003 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“43:21–61. Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments (Pet. Reply 3–5), this “subset” feature shows that the “threats” stored in databases in claim 1 represent “potential events” that may or may not occur depending on the composition of a given system undergoing threat modeling—a system may implicate all stored threats, some of them, or even just one of them, leaving the remaining stored threats for use in preparing threat models for other systems. See PO Sur-reply 2–3 (discussing Figure 2 and arguing that “not every threat is necessarily included in the threat model”). We find the claim language itself supports interpreting “threats” as “potential events that, if they occur, can cause adverse effects to a target system.”” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Claim 1 recites, in part, “the one or more mapping files correlating the threat model components with [“third party diagram components”].” Ex. 1001, 43:30–35. Generally, from the standpoint of what claim 1 requires, the parties’ views of “mapping file” are in alignment. Claim 1 plainly recites that a “mapping file” (where a “file” in the context of computer systems is data itself) correlates data A with data B, and when construed in the context of the subject claim language, correlates threat model components (i.e., data A) with third party diagram components (i.e., data B). We find that this interpretation of “mapping files” is sufficient to resolve the controversy between the parties. See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 10,713,366 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,366 - PTAB · Sep 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00650 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–38 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We determine whether to institute an inter partes review on behalf of the Director. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient were placed into a study arm and then treated with pembrolizumab. (See Ex. 1005, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–73.) Because treatment of the patients was performed only after MSI-H status was determined, the MSI-H Study Record teaches treating the patients “in response to” determining their MSI- H status.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“have been expected, Petitioner cites to Brown as teaching that PD-1 inhibitors are inherently more effective when treating tumors comprised of cells that are easy for immune cells to recognize. (See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1034, 747).) Petitioner argues further that Duval teaches that MSI-H cancers have cells that are easy for immune cells to recognize. (See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1087, 5002).) Dr. Neugut’s testimony supports Petitioner’s argument that the cited teachings of Brown and Duval, as well as other references, would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the results of the MSI-H Study Record. (See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124, 130, 132; see Pet. 41.) Petitioner argues further that Brown and Duval would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the results of the MSI-H Study Record by treating patients with common types of MSI-H cancers, including endometrial, small bowel, and gastric cancers. (See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130).) Petitioner argues further that the state of the art, as demonstrated by Brown and Duval, as well as other references, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success because physicians were successfully treating patients with cancers that were known to be MSI-H with PD-1 inhibitors. (See Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131, 132).)” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’219 patent would have been a medical doctor or a professional in a related field with at least five years of experience with treating cancer. (See Pet. 11 (citing Neugut Decl., Ex. 1003 ¶19).) Petitioner argues further that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have experience in or access to a person with knowledge of clinical studies for therapeutics and how they work and to a pathologist with comparable experience. (See id.) Dr. Neugut’s testimony supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding the level of skill that an ordinarily skilled artisan in the relevant field would have. (See Ex. 1003 ¶ 19.) Accordingly, in the analysis below, and in the absence of argument by Patent Owner to the contrary, we apply the level of skill set forth by Petitioner and refer to Dr. Neugut’s testimony of what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time the application that became the ’491 patent was filed, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,634,491 - PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00467 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims based on the asserted obviousness ground over Gil, Norden, Dean, Alphagan, and Federal Register.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Advanced Bionics, 8. As explained above, during prosecution of the ’245 patent, the examiner issued a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the claims were “not patentably distinct from” the ’742 patent claims.13 See supra Section I.H (citing Ex. 1010, 96). Petitioner argues that “[i]t was material error for the Examiner to both acknowledge that the ’245 claims were patentably indistinct from the ’742 claims and yet ignore the FWD and allow the claims despite the Board’s prior findings.” We find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. To determine whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown material error, we look at, for example, “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection.” Advanced Bionics, 9 (citing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, 10–11 (Dec. 15, 2017)). Petitioner asserts Gil, Norden, Dean, Alphagan, and Federal Register in this” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“previously denied its motion to stay. Ex. 2029. Thus, factor 1 weighs in favor of denying institution.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Patent Owner. Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any claim term. Patent Owner appears to suggest, although it does not explicitly argue, that the claims require “a single drop of [0].025% brimonidine.” See Prelim. Resp. 6; see also id. at 27 (arguing Gil is “with multi-dosed 0.03% brimonidine”); id. at 28 (arguing Dean is with “multi-dosed concentrations”). To the extent our understanding is correct, Patent Owner should expressly discuss at trial any construction that would so limit the claim. Such discussion should be set forth in a separate section of a response, if filed, designated for claim construction; claim construction positions should not be merely included in arguments over the merits on patentability.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have been a composite person (or team) that included a medical doctor and pharmaceutical formulator. EX-1014, ¶¶60-61; EX-1013, ¶¶16, 22-24. The medical doctor would be an ophthalmologist with at least three to four years of experience in clinical trials and FDA regulation of eye products and would have experience in the use of topical brimonidine and apraclonidine and topical vasoconstrictors such as naphazoline and tetrahydrozoline. EX-1014, ¶60. The pharmaceutical formulator would have a doctorate in pharmaceutics or a related degree and at least three to five years of experience developing eye drop formulations for clinical trial and regulatory approval. EX-1013, ¶16. Pet. 16–17. Patent Owner does not, at this point, dispute this proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it appears consistent with the skill level reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’245 patent.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,833,245 - Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2024 · IPR2023-00309 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 8–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–10, and 13–15 as obvious over Benjamin144 and Benjamin703; claims 4, 11–12, and 16–20 as obvious with Childers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962–63 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Turning to the claim language, we agree with Petitioner that “proximity is measured along the trace relative to the bondpad,” and “[n]othing in the claims requires a comparison to other structures, like the heater arrays.” Pet. Reply 6. For example, claim 3 recites “wherein the 8 Deposition Transcript of Steven Dietl (Dec. 19, 2023). bondpad supplies power to the first heater array and the second heater array portions by power traces physically separated proximal to the bondpad.” Ex. 1001, 6:43–46 (emphasis added). In this context, “proximal” relates to the power traces, and where they are separated, relative to the bondpad. Id. In other words, the traces are separated nearer to the bondpad (which is the traces’ proximal end relative to the bondpad) then the end of the traces (which is the traces’ distal end relative to the bondpad). Id. This conclusion is consistent with the definitions for proximal and distal from the dictionary that Patent Owner identifies. In particular, “proximal” is defined as “situated nearer to . . . the point of attachment,” and “distal” is defined as “situated away . . . from the point of attachment.” Ex. 2001, 3; Ex. 1016, 3. Here, the point of attachment is the bondpad. Of note, the dictionary also states that proximal is “[t]he opposite of distal,” which reinforces that the distance comparison for the separation is relative to the ends of the power traces. Ex. 2001, 3. Obviously, there are two ends to the traces with one being proximal to the bondpad and the other distal thereto. And we find that consulting the dictionary definition is appropriate here under our circumstances. See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (approving of “consult[ing] a general dictionary definition of [a] word for guidance” in determining ordinary meaning); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[O]ur decisions, including Phillips, do not preclude the use of general dictionary definitions as an aid to claim construction.”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Lastly, we have reviewed the experts’ testimony for this term. And we are persuaded by Dr. Pond’s testimony as we find it consistent with the claim language and the cited dictionary definitions. Ex. 2005,9 16:20–19:23. In contrast, we find Mr. Dietl’s testimony for this term contradicts the claim language and the cited dictionary definitions. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 55–57.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Thus, we view the combination of Benjamin144 and Benjamin703 as comprising a single disclosure in view of the incorporation by reference. See, e.g., Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Or at a minimum, the incorporation by reference provides an explicit motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references’ teachings. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988; see also Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.”). In addition, however, Petitioner argues that “utilizing a bondpad to supply FIRE energy signals to the fire lines 214 like in Benjamin[]703 would have been an obvious combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results.” Pet. 45–46; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 207–208. We agree with Petitioner’s argument and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Benjamin144 and Benjamin703 in the manner Petitioner does. In sum, we find that Petitioner shows that the combination of Benjamin144 and Benjamin703 teaches the bondpad limitation and provides sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support combining Benjamin144 and Benjamin703’s teachings.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 7,290,864 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,290,864 - Apple Inc. v. Immervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00472 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 3–7 are anticipated by Thibault, and claims 1–7 are obvious over Thibault.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s undisputed contention that a POSITA (person of ordinary skill in the art) “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in an academic area emphasizing physics, optical engineering, electrical engineering and/or a similar discipline, and at least five years of experience in developing and designing optical imaging systems and have familiarity with image processing algorithms and optical design software” and that “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). Patent Owner states: “Solely for purposes of this Response, Patent Owner does not object to Petitioner’s definition of a POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of experience indefinitely without an upper bound. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“To the extent necessary to determine whether the disputed language of limitation 1[e] encompasses both Figure 6 and Figure 7, we agree with Petitioner that the language of limitation 1[e] encompasses both Figure 6 and Figure 7. We determine we need not expressly construe any other claim terms. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 27
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“presented a more comprehensive claim construction position in its Petition, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s “claim construction” positions in this proceeding are improperly responsive or belated. Claim construction can be an evolving issue. We have reviewed Petitioner’s presentation of its arguments at the outset, in the Petition, and we have addressed the Petition’s arguments regarding whether limitation 1[e] is an intended use, above. Regarding the remaining arguments, we note that our rules provide that a “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The Board “will permit the petitioner, in its reply brief, to address issues discussed in the institution decision,” but a petitioner “may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. A party also may submit rebuttal evidence in support of its reply.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/ TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). We have reviewed the parties’ post-institution arguments regarding limitation 1[e], and we are not persuaded that the subsequent development of both parties’ positions on the interpretation of this term throughout the course of this proceeding is contrary to our rules. “There is no rule, for example, requiring a petition to describe all possible or reasonable claim constructions and to present invalidity theories under those constructions.” Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Axonics court further opined that “we have continued to recognize that a petitioner is entitled under the APA to respond to new claim construction arguments made by a patent owner.” Id. at 1382. A recent Federal Circuit case addressing Axonics and a petitioner’s opportunity to respond to a patent owner’s newly presented claim construction argument, which was decided after oral hearing in this case, supports the Axonics approach. Apple v. Omni MedSci, No. 2023-1034, slip op. at 11–12 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024). This case summarizes some relevant pre-existing case law in reaching its conclusion that under “both Axonics and earlier precedents, the Board abused its discretion here in refusing to consider [petitioner] Apple’s reply argument.” Id. (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018); Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real Foods LLC, 908 F.3d 1328, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Thibault but, rather, only that “Thibault renders obvious claim 2.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 127–128). Petitioner argues that Thibault teaches “special optimization” of MTF to “control the image quality in production so that it remains in the specification.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 3). Petitioner further argues that “a POSITA would have understood that Thibault’s lens designs were intended to achieve ‘constant image quality across a whole field of view,’” or “that it would have been obvious to achieve such an outcome using known ‘guidelines’ within the industry.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128). Petitioner provided no development of an anticipation position with respect to claim 2. Accordingly, although Petitioner’s uncontested position on claim 2 supports a finding of obviousness based on Thibault, because it is reasonable, not persuasively controverted, and supported by testimony, it does not support a finding of anticipation.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 10,795,120 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,795,120
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.