- PTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · PGR2025-00025 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds, finding it more likely than not that claim 1 is anticipated by the Gatorade Label.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Post-grant review is available for patents that issue from applications that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the ’422 Patent is eligible for post-grant review and has shown it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’422 Patent is unpatentable under § 324(a). Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’422 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would possess at least (1) a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or a related field, with (2) five years of experience in material identification and characterization using multiple analytical methods and field sampling, or equivalent research or professional experience.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 24). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for one of ordinary skill in the art nor provide a proposed definition of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“336. The applicant explained that not all combinations of shrink films and light blocking materials are recyclable. Id. at 335. The applicant explained that films can be compatible with PET recycling in two ways, (1) the film can float in water and be separated from PET that sinks in water or (2) the PET films crystallize and “can be recovered with the PET stream.” Id. at 336 (citing “A Resource Document by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR)”) (found at Ex. 1002, 323–332) (emphasis omitted). The applicant explained that “removing the label before or during the recycling process is not evidence of the recyclability of the label” and that “[r]emoving the label during the recycling process is not equivalent to actually recycling the label.” Id. at 335. As such, a POSITA reading the prosecution history would understand that a label is not recyclable with a PET container, as recited by the independent claims, by removing the label from the PET recycle stream before or during the recycling process.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“To determine how a person skill in the art would determine if a shrink label is “recyclable” as recited in the independent claims, we look to how the Specification of the ’422 Patent describes or defines recyclable shrink labels. For example, the ’422 Patent states that PET shrink films are generally considered recyclable if no inks are retained on the film after a caustic wash cycle typically used in PET reclaiming processes. Ex. 1001, 6:61–65. The ’422 Patent further states that labels are fully recyclable if the polymers used are clear, preferably clear PET, and the labels include inks that can be washed off in a “typical PET recycling wash (caustic wash).” Id. at 11:44– 49; see also id. at 11:49–54 (describing embodiments in which the labels are free or substantially free of inks that cannot be washed off in a caustic wash or where the labels are free or substantially free of color plastics that cannot be recycled). The ’422 Patent further discusses “industry standards” for determining whether various embodiments of shrink labels are recyclable. See, e.g., id. at 11:29–53. For example, the Specification states that the “Association for Plastic Recyclers (APR) Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures (PET-CG-02)” (Ex. 1005) can certify that a film is fully recyclable with a container or bottle. Id. at 11:34– 38. Additionally, the Specification states that labels “are recyclable according to the Evaluation of the Near Infrared (NIR) Sorting Potential of a Whole Plastic Article (SORT-B-01)” (Ex. 1010) and/or the “Evaluation of Sorting Potential for Plastic Articles Utilizing Metal, Metalized, or Metallic Printed Components (SORT-B-03)” (Ex. 1011). Ex. 1001, 11:39–44. The ’422 Patent further states that embodiments of the labels “are fully recyclable. For example, the labels may include inks that can be washed off in a typical PET recycling wash (caustic wash) and the polymers” are preferably clear PET. Id. at 11:44–48. The ’422 Patent thus provides various descriptions or standards to determine the recyclability of shrink labels. For the purposes of addressing the anticipation and obviousness grounds, we determine that any of these standards can be used to determine if a shrink label is “recyclable.” We note that our construction is preliminary and is based on the present record. We invite the parties to further the address the construction of “wherein the recyclable shrink label is recyclable with a PET container” during trial.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,961,422 - Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level 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, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Dropbox, Inc. / Microsoft Corporation v. Datanet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00079 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–20, and 23–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Kenley and Long; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“(5) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Combine We conclude a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 9,218,348 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,218,348 - Dropbox, Inc. / Microsoft Corporation v. Datanet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00078 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 8–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Kenley and Long; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“the ’478 patent, the applicant clearly and plainly informed the Office that an “[e]xemplary” embodiment of “searching the first temporary storage location for the archive file,” as recited in then-pending claim 34 and step [1.4] of issued claim 1, is found at specifically cited portions of the ’478 patent specification. See Ex. 1002, 147 (“Exemplary support may be found at . . . .”). Those specifically cited disclosures describe how smart data manager 15 “examines” input buffer 20 “for the presence of archive files” or equivalently “to determine whether any archive files are stored therein.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 2A (step 100), 5:39–42, 6:19–27. Based on this prosecution history, we conclude that in one embodiment of claim 1, searching the first temporary storage location for the archive file per step [1.4] is satisfied by examining the first temporary storage location for the presence of an archive file. We reach this conclusion even if the referenced portions of the ’478 patent specification are not regarded as being definitional with respect to the “searching” requirements of step [1.4].” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“(5) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Combine We conclude a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s” slip op. at 51
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 8,473,478 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,473,478 - Dropbox, Inc. / Microsoft Corporation v. Datanet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00080 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10–16, and 18–21 as obvious over Sweat, and claims 9 and 17 as obvious over Sweat and Schneider.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See PO Resp. 10–11 (“Patent Owner agrees to this definition proposed in the Petition.”). Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’850 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 7–8.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction principles, and does not revise or ignore the explicit language of the claims.”). In that vein, “[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.” Hockerson–Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.1999); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.”). Patent Owner’s interpretation that “the current version” requires two current versions — one locally stored current version and a corresponding remotely stored current version — asks us to improperly adopt a claim construction which ignores explicit claim language and context in order to read unrecited features into the claim. The limitation in question, more fully and in better context, recites “storing the selected previous version . . . as the current version on the local storage location.” Ex. 1001, 9:24–26 (emphasis added). The express language shows that the claim is specifically directed to the current version on the local storage location and not any possible remote current version. As such, even if there were a “current version on the remote storage location” which corresponds to and is kept in parity with the current version on the local storage location, i.e., a backup copy of the locally stored current version, the claim does not recite that feature, establishing that it does not require that feature. Further, as to the context of the claim, the term in question is part of a recited method of restoring a file to a previous version of the file on a local computational machine, rather than a method for maintaining parity of remotely stored backup files during that restoration process. See id. at 8:63–9:28. As such, the explicitly recited claim language and the context of the claim do not support reading an unrecited remote backup feature into the claim.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“been obvious to use the “Download” feature described by Sweat to replace a corrupted or otherwise compromised file, thus meeting “storing the selected previous version . . . as the current version on the local storage location.” Pet. 60–62. First, regarding the technical operation of Sweat’s download function, Petitioner explains that a user “download[s] a version of [a] file from the server 106 to the local computer 104” and selects a local “target location to save the selected file.” Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:58–63). Sweat’s download function “[c]opies the file or folder to the user’s local computer” and can “overwrite files that exist on the user’s local computer, as desired.” Ex. 1006, 5:49–55. From those disclosures, Petitioner asserts it would have been obvious to use Sweat’s download function “to restore a previous version of a file by copying the file to the user’s local computer and overwriting the current version of the file on the user’s local computer, so as to save the restored file as the new current version of that file.” Pet. 62 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 125– 126). Petitioner explains that the download function would be used in such a manner where a user “desire[s] to restore a previous version of the file to replace the current version for example, in the case where the newest version of the file has become corrupted or where desired data has been deleted from” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner. Sweat’s description of its “Viewing Files” feature explains that “a user must install the appropriate viewer to open and view drawing files.” Ex. 1006, 23:38–41. Sweat lists examples of such viewers including software applications such as Volo™ View Express. Id. at 23:45–46, 23:63–67. While Sweat does not list a CAD file creating application in its exemplary list of viewers in that “Viewing Files” section (see id. at 23:38–24:35), elsewhere, Sweat states that a CAD application, e.g., “AutoCAD®,” is “drawing/viewing software utilized by the viewer” (id. at 23:29–33). Furthermore, Petitioner’s declarant offers undisputed testimony that AutoCAD is software for creating CAD drawing files and can also be used to view those created CAD drawing files. Ex. 1024 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1029, 19–23, 541–542). On that evidence, we agree a POSITA would understand that Sweat describes using a viewer to preview previous versions of CAD drawing files and that Sweat also describes AutoCAD (which creates CAD drawing files) can be used as a viewer. In light of that understanding, we agree it would have been obvious to use AutoCAD, i.e., “an application that created the file,” to preview previous versions of that file. Pet. 62–63. We also agree that it would have been rational to do so because the same already locally available software application which created the file could then be used to view the file. Id.; see Ex. 1004 ¶ 128. Owner dismisses Petitioner’s obviousness argument as “irrelevant,” and, instead, argues that Sweat does not disclose the claimed features. PO Sur- Reply 16–17; see PO Resp. 39–40. In particular, Patent Owner argues Sweat “discloses the use of specialized viewing software to view the related file” and emphasizes that “CAD software is clearly not being used in Sweat’s ‘View in Window’ functionality” PO Resp. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1006, 23:39–51); PO Sur-Reply 17. While it may be the case that Sweat does not outright disclose the features recited in the claim, those arguments do not show fault in Petitioner’s case that the claimed features would have been obvious. See CRFD Rsch., Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Even if a reference’s teachings are insufficient to find anticipation, that same reference’s teachings may be used to find obviousness.”); Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A claimed invention may be obvious even when the prior art does not teach each claim limitation.”), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 is obvious over Sweat.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,585,850 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,585,850 - Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. v. P2i Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Cohen and Legein or Francesch and Legein; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’087 patent in June 20154 “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29); PO Resp. 13 (Patent Owner stating that it “does not dispute this characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also PO Sur-reply 1–2 (noting both parties’ agreement on the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the fully developed trial record, we determine that no claims need an express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Because of Patent Owner’s shifting definitions of the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan, it is unclear on the complete record what precise definition Patent Owner and Dr. Senkevitch are applying when arguing the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 40, 52–55, 60, 68, 74, 76, 77, 80–86, 89, 91, 94, 95, 100, 102–105, 108, 110, 111, 113–116, 118–120, 122, 124, 127–134. We, therefore, give Dr. Senkevitch’s testimony regarding the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art minimal weight, which leaves us with Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported arguments regarding the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13. Moreover, as Petitioner correctly points out, the ʼ087 patent expressly teaches that the precise conditions for forming a protective polymeric coating “will vary depending upon factors such as, without limitation, the nature of the monomer compound, the crosslinking agent, the substrate, as well as the desired properties of the coating” and that such “conditions can be determined using routine methods.” Ex. 1001 15:1–15:5 (emphasis added); Pet. Reply 17. Where the patent itself leaves to the judgment of an ordinarily skilled artisan the assessment of these factors to ascertain suitable conditions for forming the protective coating, we find persuasive Petitioner’s view that it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to ascertain such suitable conditions.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claims of the ʼ087 patent recite obtaining the protective cross-linked polymeric coating “by exposing the device or component to a plasma,” the field of endeavor analysis in an analogous art inquiry does not exclusively turn on the claims at issue, but rather takes account of the entirety of a patent’s disclosure. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the PTO must show adequate support for its findings on the scope of the field of endeavor in the application’s written description and claims” (emphasis added)); In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting an argument that the field of endeavor was limited to a claimed “Internet terminal” when “the specification describes various communication media, including facsimile machines and email, as related to the invention.”). This is significant here because the ʼ087 patent discloses that “[t]he … invention relates to protective coatings” and specifically “relates to protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof, and methods of forming such coatings.” Ex. 1001, 1:14–17. Based on this disclosure, we find that the ʼ087 patent’s field of endeavor relates to “protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof” broadly, not just those formed on such devices or components via a plasma polymerization process as asserted by Patent Owner. Id. Although Cohen does not explicitly disclose that its crosslinked polymers constitute a “protective coating,” Cohen does disclose that its “copolymerizable mixture can be cast into films” (Ex. 1004, 2:61–62), that the polymerization can “effected in situ,” and that the polymers may be used in “numerous” electrical applications (id. at 5:17–25). Tr. 8:9–10:2, 27:2– 21; see Pet. Reply 5 (explaining how “Cohen described insulating polymers that could be applied as films and be used to protect substrates including cables and electrical coils.” (citing Ex. 1004, 2:60–63, 5:13–25)). These disclosures suggest strongly that Cohen’s crosslinked polymers––if cast into a film or formed in situ on an electrical device or component––would serve as a protective coating on that electrical device or component, even though Cohen does not expressly refer to its crosslinked polymers ipsis verbis as a “protective coating.” Thus, we find that Cohen is within the field of endeavor of the ʼ087 patent.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 11,041,087 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,041,087 - Sterlite Technologies Inc. v. Afl Telecommunications, LLC.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00127 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 8, or 13 were unpatentable over either proposed obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been unpatentable over the proposed prior art. We analyze the asserted grounds with the above-noted principles in mind.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art As noted above, resolving the question of obviousness requires determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Here, however, as Patent Owner observes (Prelim. Resp. 10), 8 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of secondary considerations in its Preliminary Response. Therefore, secondary considerations do not constitute part of our analysis herein. Petitioner has provided no assessment as to the level of ordinary skill to be considered in evaluating the grounds of obviousness that are advanced by Petitioner. The absence of such assessment calls into question the fundamental adequacy of Petitioner in carrying its burden to show a reasonable likelihood of success of unpatentability of the challenged claims that necessarily must take into account the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In any event, we do not discern that there is any apparent dispute between the parties as to the meaning of any claim term. In considering the record at hand, we determine that it is unnecessary to make explicit, or further address, any claim term in deciding whether or not to institute trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the 9 Throughout their briefings, the parties refer to the limitations designated [1.1] through [1.7] using the term “element,” e.g., “element [1.7]” (see, e.g., Pet. 23; Prelim. Resp. 23). For consistency with the parties’ chosen nomenclature, we do the same in this Decision. controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Summers’ fiber optic cable 50 to include Kaji’s intermittently-fixed optical fiber tape 2A to obtain the predictable result of enabling a higher density of optical fibers to be packed in Summers’ fiber optic cable 50, as contemplated by Kaji. *** a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because such modification would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of Summers’ four-fiber ribbons 52 with Kaji’s intermittently-fixed optical fiber tape 2A by known methods of cable manufacturing. ***” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,287,591 - Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2023-01460 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Dua, Hong, and Lockwood; the Board did not reach the additional grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“lululemon proposes, and Nike does not dispute, that one skilled in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–45); see also PO Resp. 13 (“Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). There being no dispute, we adopt lululemon’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“lululemon asserts that “the plain and unambiguous language of the claim[s] requires that the flat-knitted element having the claimed features must be formed from a flat-knitting process.” Pet. 13–14. Nike agrees, and 1 US 3,641,603, issued Feb. 15, 1972 (Ex. 1003, “Lockwood”). 2 US 2005/0193592 A1, published Sep. 8, 2005 (Ex. 1004, “Dua”). 3 US 6,558,784 B1, issued May 6, 2003 (Ex. 1011, “Norton”). 4 H. Hong, The development of 3D shaped knitted fabrics for technical purposes on a flat knitting machine, INDIAN JOURNAL OF FIBRE & TEXTILE RESEARCH, VOL. 19, PGS. 189–194 (Sep. 1994) (Ex. 1005, “Hong”). 5 US 2006/0053658 A1, published Mar. 16, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Voughlohn”). notes that our Institution Decision adopted that construction, i.e., “that the ‘domed, three dimensional structure’ of the ‘flat-knitted element,’ recited in claims 1, 10, and 11, is formed ‘during the flat-knitting process.’” PO Resp. 12 (quoting Inst. Dec. 6). Thus, the parties make clear that the claims do not encompass forming the claimed “three-dimensional structure” after the flatknitting process is complete. Thus, we maintain the construction in our Institution Decision that the claimed “central portion having a domed, threedimensional structure” must be formed during the flat-knitting process, and not afterward.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Nike and its expert mischaracterize Hong. After close review of the opinions of both parties’ experts, we credit the opinion of lululemon’s expert as more consistent with Hong’s disclosure than that of Nike’s expert. In particular, lululemon’s expert points to Hong’s unmistakable and explicit disclosure that “knitting directly the 3D shapes can overcome fabric waste and diminish the labour cost inherent to the use of two-dimensional fabrics.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 91 (quoting Ex. 1005, 5) (emphasis added). That disclosure by Hong of “knitting directly” the 3D shape clearly suggests it is formed as part of Hong’s flat-knitting process, and not as part of some post-knit seaming process. Hong’s additional disclosure of “diminish[ing] the labour cost inherent to the use of two-dimensional fabrics” also cuts against Nike’s notion of an additional step of “forming that two-dimensional pattern piece into a three-dimensional structure” following the flat knitting step. See PO Resp. 21–22.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d. Conclusion For all the above reasons, we find that the combination of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood teaches or suggests an article of footwear having “a domed, three-dimensional structure” that is formed during “a flat-knitting process” and “shaped to extend above the plane” of “flattened” side portions, as recited in claims 1 and 11. We also find that one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of succeeding in forming an article of footwear having such a domed, three-dimensional structure as a result of combining the teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood. And, because Nike does not otherwise contest that one skilled in the art would have had sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood or that such combination discloses the remaining elements of claims 1 and 11, we need not further address those uncontested elements. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Board, having found the only disputed limitations together in one reference, was not required to address undisputed matters.”). Thus, we conclude that lululemon demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,730,484 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,730,484 - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious: claim 1 over Cho, Aaron, and Carpenter; claim 2 over those references and de Geer; claim 3 over Cho and Aaron; and claim 4 over Cho, Aaron, and de …
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“application are similar, as indicated by the redline comparison of two provided as Exhibit 1015. Critically, however, the “Summary of the Invention” sections are completely different. Id. at 2–4. The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood with reasonable clarity, without the benefit of the Summary added for the ’286 patent/’674 application, that the ՚030 application describes a smart telephone that executes coded instructions to “convert the analog variable voltage audio signal received at the microphone port to the transaction data as digital data.”” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Here, although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. The evidence indicates that the claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data B1-Bn” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As discussed above in Section II.C, we construe the term “transaction data” as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. Again, we emphasize that claim 1 requires that the transaction data is accepted by the card reader from an output interface of the transaction card. Cho provides that card reader 230 reads a digital signal that includes account information of card 130 whereby the account information “may include at least one of an account number, a card expiration data, etc.” Ex. 1005, 5:54–58. We further agree with Petitioner that to the extent “transaction data” is for the purpose of conducting banking transactions, Cho’s account data of a credit card number and expiration date can perform that purpose. Patent Owner’s arguments that the transaction data cannot be “static” and that claim 1 requires “processing actual transaction-specific data” are not commensurate with the scope of the claim 1. The claim does not recite any limitations that the transaction data be dynamic or “not static,” nor does it recite any processing of the transaction data outside of using it to “facilitate transactions.” Petitioner has shown that Cho teaches the claimed transaction data.” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,286 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - Tennant Company v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · IPR2021-00625 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand
Claims 13, 14, and 17–27 were not shown unpatentable because Tennant did not establish that Wikey or Davies inherently disclosed the claimed microbubbles and nanobubbles.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11. On September 19, 2024, we authorized the parties to file supplemental briefing, stating also that the “parties are not authorized to present new factual assertions, provide additional exhibits, or raise new arguments beyond those directed to the issues raised in the remand.” Ex. 3001. Pursuant to this authorization, Petitioner filed an Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 61; “Pet. Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Patent Owner filed a Lead Brief on Remand (Paper 62; “PO Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Petitioner filed a Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 66; “Pet. Reply Br. Rem.”). Patent Owner filed a Responsive Brief on Remand (Paper 65; “PO Resp. Br. Rem.”).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Accordingly, and in line with our previous determination that “Wikey appears to disclose each limitation of claim 13 except ‘microbubbles and nanobubbles having a bubble diameter of less than 50 microns’” (Final Dec. 20), we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey inherently discloses microbubbles or nanobubbles. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey discloses every limitation of claim 13.” slip op. at 56
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11.” slip op. at 3
Patent outcomesUS RE45,415 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
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.