- Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 4–8 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 4–6 as obvious over Huang2 and Kuo, and claims 7–8 as anticipated by Huang2; claims 2–3 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“(“POSITA”) “would be a Ph.D. student with a minimum of two years of experience in their faculty advisor’s laboratory” and would have an understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C7). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–29. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”). Importantly, the Specification does not treat the existence of minor peaks as prerequisites for the existence of major peaks. Indeed, the Specification does not discuss “minor peaks” at all. See generally Ex. 1001. Likewise, none of the claims of the ’227 patent, whether challenged or unchallenged, recites “minor peaks” or any additional peaks beyond the disputed “major peaks.” Id. at 23:30–24:42. Nor does the Specification include an example of FFT analysis results in which the average of the peaks therein is calculated and those higher than the average are identified as major peaks.8” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMixed
“Petitioner has the better position. Huang2 teaches crosslinking and provides a reason for doing so (stability). In particular, Huang2 states: “To better mimic skin ECM, electrospun collagen fibers have been fabricated, however, the rapid degradation and poor mechanical properties determine that either crosslinking or combination with other materials is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold.” Ex. 1005, 1791 (emphasis added). It is true that, in describing work actually carried out, Huang2 states that blending with PCL was performed and does not mention crosslinking. See id. at 1792 (“Nanofibrous matrices of PCL and Collagen at a weight ratio of 3:1 were fabricated using electrospinning as previously described.”). However, the prior art – here, Huang2 – is not limited to that which it describes having created. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (“a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples”); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Huang2 teaches two stabilization methods when using collagen in scaffolds. Huang2 states that one or the other “is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold” (when using collagen), but it does not preclude or teach away from using Patent Owner-cited testimony of Dr. Mikos is not as definitive as Patent Owner suggests; Dr. Mikos’s testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would not have done both.” Ex. 2015 ¶64 (emphasis added). The bottom line is that Huang2 teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art two ways to stabilize scaffolds/matrices comprised of collagen, provides a reason for doing so (stability), and does not teach away from using both. We are persuaded that a “scaffold comprising crosslinked fibers comprising collagen” would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Huang2.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Appellant’s citations to either reference. As discussed above, Petitioner’s Ground 1 is premised on a person of ordinary skill in the art altering the native flat sheet structure of Huang2 by rolling it into a jelly-roll structure as taught by Kuo. See Pet. 41 (Beginning its claim 2 arguments with the following: “Claim 1 is obvious for the reasons expressed above in § X.A., supra, which are incorporated herein.”); see also Pet. Reply 17 (“[B]ased on the explicit teaching of Kuo, a POSA would have been motivated to take the electrospun flat scaffold made by the techniques of Huang2, seed it with the desired cells, and roll it to treat a tendon and ligament.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the paragraphs of Kuo that Petitioner cites for disclosing “scaffold sheets,” explicitly describe rolling them into jelly-roll like structures. See Ex. 1018 ¶7 (stating that “the sheet is spirally contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct”), ¶22 (describing a method comprising “forming a tissue construct by contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct” and implanting it in a patient). Petitioner fails to argue that that “one or more elongated sheets” recited in claim 2 would encompass the rolled structure of its proposed modification. Nor does Petitioner articulate a claim construction argument that could support such an argument. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 would have been obvious over Huang2 and Kuo.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 11,318,227 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,318,227 - C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 26, 2015 · IPR2014-00727 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 are unpatentable as obvious over Betts; claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 were not shown unpatentable over Betts and the Orange Book.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The term “enclosure unit” encompasses lavatories, aircraft closets, and aircraft galleys. Given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to further construe this term. 2. “lavatory stall unit” Whereas independent claim 1 recites “enclosure unit,” independent claim 9 recites “lavatory stall unit.” Patent Owner proposes the latter be construed as “a single room, enclosed on all sides, having a toilet and washbasin and large enough to fit a person inside.” PO Resp. 12. For reasons similar to those with respect to “enclosure unit,” we reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “lavatory stall unit.” Further, given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to provide an express construction for this term. More specifically, Petitioner does not rely on any particular prior art lavatory. Indeed, Petitioner does not rely on either of the asserted references to teach a “lavatory stall unit,” instead relying on the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“These proposed constructions would render the claim language “in a vertical plane” meaningless because tilting a seatback between an upright position and another position would have no effect on the shape of the aft surface of the seatback. Therefore, we do not adopt them. See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (proposed construction that rendered a portion of the claim language meaningless held improper). Rather, we construe “in a vertical plane” according to its ordinary and customary meaning and consistent with the specification, which contrasts a forward wall in a vertical plane (see Fig. 1—the prior art) against a recessed forward wall (see Fig. 2—an embodiment of the claimed invention). In sum, the full limitation at issue encompasses an aft portion (in the case of claim 1) and an aft portion with an exterior aft surface (in the case of claims 9, 21, and 31) that has a flat shape but which is not within a vertical plane. This is within the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification, which discloses a substantially conforming recessed forward wall positioned behind the seat (see Ex. 1001, Fig. 2), as opposed to a wall that is flat in a vertical plane (see id. at Fig. 1). 4. “forward wall portion is shaped to substantially conform to the shape of the” slip op. at 10
- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“As discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 of the ’838 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Betts. But, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Betts and the Orange Book, as Petitioner has not established that the evidence relied upon within the Orange Book is a printed publication.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“motivated to efficiently use space on an aircraft, as evidenced by Betts, “to provide more room for passengers.” Id. ¶ 65 (quoting Ex. 1003, 1:6–7). Mr. Anderson further testifies that Betts teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art a recessed forward wall configuration that uses space more efficiently than a flat configuration, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the recessed configuration to other aircraft enclosures, including lavatories. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been discouraged from attempting to tailor Betts’ divided space design to any lavatory stall unit (or any other enclosure unit) because Betts required separate enclosures divided both functionally and spatially.” PO Resp. 29. But, Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability is not premised on whether it would have been practical or possible to convert Bett’s “divided space” (i.e., its overhead coat compartment and floor luggage space) into a lavatory. Rather, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Bett’s recessed forward wall design to other aircraft enclosures, including a lavatory. Pet. 19 (“One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the McDonnell Douglas patent [i.e., Betts] are equally applicable to the forward walls of other enclosure units, such as lavatories or galleys.”) (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 65–68); cf. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the 15 features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 8,590,838 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,590,838 - Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 23, 2014 · IPR2013-00290 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–16, and 20–22 are unpatentable as anticipated by Arend; claims 2, 3, 17, and 19 were not shown unpatentable, and the motion to amend was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. We are not persuaded that the ’536 patent limits the required movement of the “rod that is movable” to axial movement of the entire rod. For its proposed construction, Patent Owner relies on figures and description from the ’536 patent that are explicitly described as exemplary embodiment or embodiments. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 6C, 7B, 8B, 12:59–64); PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 7A, 10:26–30, 13:30–37). The ’536 patent, however, clearly identifies Figure 7A (and the rest of the figures), as well as the corresponding description, as exemplary embodiments of the invention, stating explicitly that “[r]eference herein to details of the illustrated embodiments is not intended to limit the scope of the claims.” Ex. 1001, 16:4–8; see also 7:20–25. The testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, George Markus, is based on these same portions of the ’536 patent that describe exemplary embodiments. Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 34–38. Patent Owner does not, however, point us to any language of the ’536 patent that evidences a clear intention to limit the claims to an exemplary embodiment. Thus, we are not persuaded that the language in the specification pointed to by Patent Owner limits the scope of the term at issue here. See, e.g. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”); DSW v. Shoe Pavilion, 537 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen claim language is broader than the preferred embodiment, it is well-settled that claims are not to be confined to that embodiment.”).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed modifications improperly limit the claim terms. See Reply 6–9. Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that while the patent discloses that it is preferable to engage the lock member teeth in a lower flex zone, it does not restrict the invention to that situation. Id. at 7. For example, Mr. Markus admits that there is some benefit of reduced wear even if only some, but not all, of the teeth of the lock members engage in the relatively lower flex zone. Id. (citing deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Markus, Ex. 1011, 219:14–22, 222:2–12; 224:7–11, 225:12–25). Thus, a broader interpretation of the term “relatively higher flex zone” is also consistent with the ’536 patent’s stated objection to reduce wear. Even more telling, the ’536 patent itself states, in its description of an exemplary embodiment, “the complementary lock member 512 is lockably engaged with the lock member 510 at a position that is proximate, at least in part, to the zone 514.” Ex. 1001, 14:11–16 (emphasis added). We, therefore, are not persuaded that the ’536 patent “specifically disavows” engagement outside the relatively higher flex zone, as asserted by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 36–37. To the contrary, we are persuaded that the ’536 patent explicitly contemplates that the teeth may, at least in part, not engage within the relatively higher flex zone. We also agree with Petitioner that the claim language does not require comparison of adjacent flex zones. Id. (citing Ex. 1011, 227:10–24, 230:10–231:3). While the word adjacent is recited in the claims (e.g., “the relatively lower flex zone of the platen being a portion of the platen adjacent to the rod”) it refers to a flex zone being adjacent the rod, not another flex zone. See Ex. 1011, 227:10–24. Patent Owner’s reliance on Figure 8D as supporting the proposed restriction does not persuade us otherwise. As discussed above, Figure 8D describes an exemplary embodiment, and Patent Owner does not point to any language indicating that the claims should be limited to this embodiment. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s unexplained and unsupported statement that “[o]nly by comparing zones that are adjacent, can such location of the engagement [in the lower flex zone] be accurately pinpointed.” PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 45–47).5” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“member is engagable with the lock member within a relatively lower flex zone of the platen” (“the engagement limitation”).6 In the Decision to Institute, we adopted a broadest reasonable construction of this term encompassing the situation in which the complementary lock member and the lock member are capable of interlocking or meshing at least in part within or proximate to a relatively lower flex zone of the platen. Dec. to Inst. 10–12. Neither party explicitly addresses the broadest reasonable determine which is the relatively high flex zone and which is the relatively low flex zone.”). The other cited paragraphs are not related to the statement they are cited to support. See id. ¶¶ 46–47. Nor could we find, upon review of the complete declaration, any other support for Patent Owner’s assertion. 6 Independent claims 1 and 12 recite this limitation as quoted. Independent claim 18 includes a similar limitation, “engaging a lock member associated with the rod with a complementary lock member associated with the platen at a position located proximate to a relatively lower flex zone of the platen.” construction of this claim term in their post-institution briefing. We conclude that no additional construction of the term is necessary.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, an anticipatory reference must show all of the limitations of the claims “arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claims.” Id. at 1370; see Finisar Corp. v DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334–37 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Petitioner asserts that Choi’s teeth 38 correspond to the claimed lock member, teeth 48 correspond to the claimed complementary lock member, and tie bar 20 corresponds to the claimed rod. Pet. 36. In addition, according to Petitioner, Choi’s securing/clamping assembly 22 corresponds to the claimed clamp assembly. Id. Petitioner reasons that these elements of Choi are part of the machine disclosed in Glaesener because of the following sentence: “The tie-bar nuts can be secured to the rear wall 16 by any appropriate mechanism, such as the pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism described in [Choi].” Pet. 25, 36. Petitioner, however, does not explain how the relied upon elements of Choi’s device secure the tie-bar nuts of Glaesener to rear wall 16 of Glaesener’s platen. In fact, Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure in Choi of tie-bar nuts or their equivalent. See Pet. 32–41. Moreover, there is no dispute that Choi does not use the term “pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism.” Tr. 16:7–10. And Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence as to what part of Choi is included in the term “pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism.” See Tr. 16:7–12 (arguing for the first time that what “pineapple and tooth mechanism” in Glaesener refers to is Figure 3A in Choi with no reference to the record); Tr. 60:14–22 (explaining that Petitioner does not provide evidence of what the pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism is). Without such explanation and supporting evidence, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that the various portions of Choi and Glaesener, on which it relies, are combined in the same way as recited in the challenged claims. See Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that although the prior art reference could be said to contain all of the elements of the claimed invention, it did not anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because it “disclose[d] an entirely different device, composed of parts distinct from those of the claimed invention, and operating in a different way to process different material differently.”). The Federal Circuit has expressly warned against treating patent “claims as mere catalogs of separate parts” without regard for the “part-to-part relationships set forth” therein. NetMoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1370 (quoting Lindemann, 730 F.2d at 1459).” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,670,536 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,670,536
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.