- Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–16 of the ’923 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). One may show support for the claims of a later application by showing that a single, earlier application provides written description support for the claims. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, MBH v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a patentee “cannot distinct previous applications”). Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“7. Analysis: Reasons to Combine the References Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yoakim, Jarisch and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/espresso machines.” Pet. 43. “Yoakim and Jarisch both improve the optimization of beverage parameters in a single-serve brewing system, and use optical codes read by the machine to achieve this.” Id. “Rapparini further improves the the wall of the capsule body like those used in Yoakim and Jarisch.” Id. at 43–44; see id. at 50–51, 53–54 (Petitioner’s further argument that Rapparini discloses “an optimized capsule structure that is stiffer and more stable” by virtue of radially spaced and vertically oriented ribs and grooves, where the vertically oriented grooves are free from extending entirely to the bottom region of the capsule). Petitioner directs us to additional evidence tending to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to modify Yoakim’s device, to include the code placement of Jarisch and the grooves and ribs of Rapparini, to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success. Id. at 44–48.” slip op. at 27
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,994,923 - PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–61 and 63–81 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Doud anticipates claims 19–61 and 63–75.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’740 patent. Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“the application describe the claim limitations exactly,” the application must demonstrate to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants invented a composition including those limitations. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262. On its face, the range of “at least 0.01 wt. %” encompasses a range that is broader than 0.01–35 wt. %, and Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from merely a disclosure of 35 wt.% that the inventors were in possession of the entire claimed range for copper, cobalt, or nickel in the magnesium composition.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedOther
“On this record, the term “at least 0.01 wt. %” in the ’740 patent encompasses values for nickel, copper, and cobalt that are higher than the 35 wt. % (nickel and copper) and 20 wt. % (cobalt) limits outlined in the parent and grandparent applications. Accordingly, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 of the ’740 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications. Challenged claims 20–61 and 63–75 depend from claim 19 and there is no argument presented that these claims have independent written description support in Doud. For example, there is no evidence presented that any of these dependent claims narrow the ranges for each of copper, nickel, and cobalt recited in in the ’295 application for these claims.7 Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Doud as prior art to challenged claims 19–61 and 63–75.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“as the ’740 patent. For example, Doud and the ’740 patent both disclose a method of forming a novel magnesium composite that includes melting an AZ91D magnesium alloy containing 90 wt. % magnesium, 9 wt. % aluminum, and 1 wt. % zinc. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47; Ex. 1001, 21:43–51, 22:48–53, 33:32–43, 34:9–12. To this alloy is added either 7 wt. % nickel or 10 wt. % copper. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:48–51, 22:53–56, 33:35–36, 34:12–13. These additives are mixed in the magnesium alloy at a temperature that is less than the melting point of copper or nickel, and the casting is then cooled. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:51–54, 22:56–58, 33:35, 34:12-13. Doud reports that nickel and copper, when added to molten magnesium, will form Mg2Ni and CuMg2 intermetallic, galvanically-active, in situ precipitates. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12–13. Doud discloses that the dissolution rate of the resulting casting material is either 325 mg/cm2-hr (nickel) or 50 mg/cm2-hr (copper) in a 3% KCl solution at 90° C. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:60–62, 22:61–63, 33:41–43, 34:15–17. Doud also discloses that the average particle diameter of the additives used in the invention is generally “at least about 0.1 microns” and “typically no more than about 500 microns.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Petitioner explains how the identified disclosures of Doud anticipate independent claim 19. Pet. 39–40. Petitioner also identifies where the limitations of dependent claims 20–61 and 63–75 are disclosed in Doud. Id. at 41–45. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s anticipation arguments with respect to claims 19–61 and 63–75, apart from arguing that Doud is not prior art to these claims. Prelim. Resp. 27–39. demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 19–61 and 63–75 are anticipated by Doud.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,689,740 - Tokyo Ohka Kogyo., Ltd. v. Fujifilm Electronic Materials U.S.A., Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00010 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable for lack of written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach either obviousness ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had a Bachelor degree in materials science, engineering, chemistry or similar technical discipline, and had at least two years of experience relating to the design and development of semiconductor manufacturing processes.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further submits that, “[a]lternatively, such a person may have had additional graduate education as a substitute for professional experience, or significant work experience as a substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[w]ithout taking a position on the correctness of this definition, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s POSA definition.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Pet. 14). 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Petitioner contends, and Patent Owner does not contest, that “the earliest priority date claimed by the ’329 patent” is December 6, 2013. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 6. Because the undisputed earliest claimed priority date of the ’329 patent is after March 16, 2013, we apply the AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103. record, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. It is clear from the plain language of claim 1 that the claimed “cleaning composition” is a composition for cleaning that includes four named components and has a specified pH. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The ’329 patent specification unambiguously teaches that the cleaning composition is for removing residues from semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:23–29, 2:10–12, 2:17–33, 15:52–55. Although the ’329 patent describes a cleaning composition that comprises a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, we see no reason to construe the term “cleaning composition” itself to require these components. Claim 1 expressly recites expressly including or precluding a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The Federal Circuit advises that the specification “is not a suitable substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language. ‘Specifications teach. Claims claim.’” SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875 (quoting SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)). The ’329 patent specification does teach a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, but claim 1 is directed to a cleaning composition that expressly requires only a subset of those components. Patent Owner’s proposed construction would effectively rewrite the claim by adding unclaimed components, which we decline to do under the guise of claim construction. See id. (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“that Petitioner establishes that the ’329 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Pet. 15–43; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–82. More specifically, we find that the ’329 patent does not reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor was in possession of cleaning compositions that do not include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. There is no dispute, on this record, that the ’329 patent specification explicitly teaches that a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water are mandatory components of the cleaning composition described therein. PO Resp. 15 (Patent Owner agreeing with Petitioner that “[t]he ’329 patent’s disclosure is unambiguously explicit regarding mandatory components of the cleaning compositions described therein.” (citing Pet. 17; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–57) (emphasis omitted, alteration in original)); see Ex. 1001, 3:47–48, 3:62–64, 10:24–26, 10:66–11:2, 12:3–4; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–67. Claim 1, however, does not require that the cleaning composition include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. Therefore, establishing proper written description support for claim 1 requires more than showing that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water; the ’329 patent must also show that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes only a redox agent (hydroxylamine), an organic solvent (an alkylene glycol), water, and an alkanolamine. Id.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,927,329 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,927,329 - Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 22, 2023 · PGR2022-00009 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14–19 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, anticipation by Bruning, or obviousness over Bruning and Kabel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“lighting device.” Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits,” as Petitioner proposes and that “the field of design and/or development” would be “in the context of lighting devices” as Patent Owner proposes, in which “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id.; Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“theoretically fall under the “or greater” portion of the amended claim limitation “forward voltage of 6V or greater,” Applicant distinguished Colby on the basis that the 120V AC voltage from a wall outlet is not “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs.” See Ex. 1023, 9 (emphasis added). Applicant’s argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue––“forward voltage of 6V or greater”––and specifically states that it is not disclosed because Colby does not disclose the minimum voltage and instead, discloses something else, something larger–– 120V AC voltage. Accordingly, we conclude that Applicant disclaimed any voltage that is more than “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs” from the scope of “forward voltage.”” slip op. at 25
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“4. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) With respect to the written description requirement, we are persuaded” slip op. at 32
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“Basis § Unpatentable Unpatentable Lack of written description, 3, 10, 17 112(a) 3, 10, 17 Lack of enablement 3, 10, 17 112(b) Indefiniteness 3, 10, 17 Lack of written description, 4, 11, 18 112(a) 4, 11, 18 Lack of enablement 4, 11, 18 112(b) indefiniteness 4, 11, 18” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 10,932,341 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,932,341 - PTAB · Aug 15, 2022 · IPR2022-00381 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and 12–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“Having reviewed the disclosures of the ’626 provisional application relied upon by Patent Owner, we do not agree that they would convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Mr. Niester had possession of using 222 or 282 nm wavelengths to disinfect human or animal skin. While they refer to human activity such as travel, surgery, and food preparation, the disclosures do not refer to disinfecting skin. Rather, they refer to sterilizing things in the presence of humans, such as surfaces and air, but not human or animal skin itself. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied its initial burden of production on the effective-filing-date issue by identifying the absence of specific supporting disclosure for claim 1 from the ’626 provisional application. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing burden framework in inter partes review). Based on this record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing that challenged claims 1–10 are not entitled to an effective filing date earlier than the filing date of the PCT application. The parties will have an opportunity to develop their positions on the issue of the effective filing date of claims 1–10 during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Having considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties on the present record, we are persuaded Petitioner sufficiently shows that Eckhardt and Sosnin teach or suggest all of the limitations in claim 1, and sufficiently explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used Eckhardt’s teaching of narrow spectrum light in the range of 220 to 310 nm to disinfect skin, with Sosnin’s implementation of excimer lasers including 222 and 282 nm to kill bacteria, to arrive at the method of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Eckhardt teaches away from the use of UV light on skin because it is based on a mischaracterization of Eckhardt, which does not teach bandages as a way to provide cover from direct UV light, but rather, compensates for application of UV light through a bandage by controlling the UV light intensity. Indeed, Eckhardt’s embodiment that Petitioner relies upon is titled “UV- Transmissive Bandage” and explains how to choose bandage materials that transmit UV-C light. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69–72. We also disagree, on this record, with Patent Owner’s argument that Sosnin would dissuade a person of ordinary skill from using 222 or 282 nm wavelengths to disinfect skin . Although Patent Owner is correct that Sosnin refers to the need for additional testing before using its technology outside of a laboratory (Prelim. Resp. 31), Mr. Lawal directs us to evidence supporting his testimony that it was general knowledge in the art at the time of the invention that even though UV light poses safety risks to human skin, UV-C light of 222 nm on bare skin for disinfection was relatively safe. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–91 (citing Exs. 1013, 1015, 1016, 1017). Patent Owner presents only attorney argument in response to Mr. Lawal’s testimony and supporting evidence. We invite the parties to continue to develop this issue during trial.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Eckhardt teaches away from the use of UV light on skin because it is based on a mischaracterization of Eckhardt, which does not teach bandages as a way to provide cover from direct UV light, but rather, compensates for application of UV light through a bandage by controlling the UV light intensity. Indeed, Eckhardt’s embodiment that Petitioner relies upon is titled “UV- Transmissive Bandage” and explains how to choose bandage materials that transmit UV-C light. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69–72. We also disagree, on this record, with Patent Owner’s argument that Sosnin would dissuade a person of ordinary skill from using 222 or 282 nm wavelengths to disinfect skin . Although Patent Owner is correct that Sosnin refers to the need for additional testing before using its technology outside of a laboratory (Prelim. Resp. 31), Mr. Lawal directs us to evidence supporting his testimony that it was general knowledge in the art at the time of the invention that even though UV light poses safety risks to human skin, UV-C light of 222 nm on bare skin for disinfection was relatively safe. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–91 (citing Exs. 1013, 1015, 1016, 1017). Patent Owner presents only attorney argument in response to Mr. Lawal’s testimony and supporting evidence. We invite the parties to continue to develop this issue during trial.” slip op. at 17
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,700,642 - China Lithium Battery Technology Co., Ltd. v. Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2022 · PGR2022-00008 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–19 were more likely than not unpatentable on the asserted anticipation, obviousness, written-description, enablement, or further-limitation grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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). Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may be instituted only 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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petition and do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We agree with the parties that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a post-graduate or equivalent degree in material science and engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or a related field, and three to five years of work experience lithium ion battery technology, battery electrode materials, and experience with XRD analysis, which is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding 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 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Although we do not fully adopt either party’s definition of the person having ordinary skill in the art, our determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, and we note that our conclusions would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“results of the tests relied on by Petitioner are representative of the properties of Batteries #1–6, L, M, and S prior to the June 29, 2018 effective filing date of the ’932 patent.17 In that regard, we credit Dr. White’s testimony, which is supported by objective evidence of record, that the condition of lithium-ion batteries can change over time upon storage or usage, and that such changes could lead to changes in the OI values of the positive film. Ex. 2003 ¶ 73 (citing Ex. 2017, 617–618, Fig. 4; Ex. 2018, 418, Figs. 7, 8; Ex. 2019, 2737, 2739–40, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 2020, 33, Fig. 6). We further credit Dr. White’s testimony, also supported by objective evidence of record, that “overcharging, deep discharging, or exposure to heat, among other things” can cause swelling and deterioration of the batteries, which “in turn could lead to altered structure and OI values of the cathode.” Id. ¶ 74 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022; Ex. 2023).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties propose constructions for the terms “layered lithium- containing compound” recited in claim 1 and “monocrystal particles” recited in claim 17. Pet. 11–14; Prelim. Resp. 13–14. For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,930,932 - SZ Dji Technology Co., Ltd. v. Autel Robotics USA LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 14, 2020 · PGR2019-00016 · APJ Erica A Franklin · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–24 as obvious over Phantom 2 Manual and Kondo; claims 1–17 and 21–24 over Saika and Ichiba; claims 18–20 over Saika, Ichiba, and Phelps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that the differences in their proposed definitions do not impact Petitioner’s grounds for unpatentability or Patent Owner’s responsive arguments. Pet. Reply 3; PO Sur-Reply 1. turn on which proposed definition is applied. In any event, having considered the evidence and the arguments, we find Petitioner’s rationale for its broader description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be persuasive and supported by record as a whole. Accordingly, for this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art, while maintaining that the prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts that “the term ‘fixed with’ needs no construction here because—whether the Board adopts Petitioner’s proposal or Patent Owner’s position—the . . . obviousness analysis will not ultimately be impacted.” PO Resp. 7. In the Reply, Petitioner agrees with Patent Owner that “the construction of ‘fixed with’ is not necessary to resolve the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. Reply 2. Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we agree that no claim terms are in controversy with respect the asserted obviousness grounds. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). This finding is consistent with our analysis of the indefiniteness challenge, as discussed below in Section II.F.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“invention. Based upon our review of the arguments and evidence, we find that it is. “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to at 658–59. Patent Owner argues that Kondo and the ’013 patent are not from the same field of endeavor because Kondo is concerned with batteries for hand-held power tools and the challenged patent is directed to batteries for UAVs. PO Sur-Reply 3–5. Petitioner asserts that the field of endeavor includes any area describing mechanisms for latching a battery in a portable consumer electronic device. Pet. Reply 5. We find that Petitioner’s description of the field of endeavor to be overly broad as the ’013 patent explicitly states that it “relates to [the] unmanned aerial vehicle field, more particularly, relates to a battery used for unmanned aerial vehicle and an unmanned aerial vehicle.” Ex. 1001, 1:18–20. Moreover, as Patent Owner correctly asserts, the only independent claim of ’013 patent recites “[a] multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle,” comprising components of such a UAV, including its battery compartment, battery, and battery latching mechanism. Id. at 5:42–64. In contrast, Kondo explicitly states that it “relates to a novel attachment structure which allows a battery pack including secondary cells to be detachably attached to a battery holder in a power-driven tool.” Ex. 1008, 1:6–9. Moreover, each of Kondo’s claims are directed toward such attachment structure for power-driven tools. Petitioner has not argued persuasively why we should consider either of the fields of endeavor for the challenged patent or Kondo to be more inclusive than what each patent explicitly describes its own field to be. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Kondo is in the same field of endeavor as the ’013 patent. However, our inquiry whether Kondo is analogous art does not end there. particular problem with which the inventors of the ’013 patent are involved, meaning it is “one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. According to Petitioner, Kondo’s disclosure is reasonably pertinent because the problem it addresses, i.e., how to securely latch a battery package into a housing of an electronic device in a secure, user-friendly manner, is similarly addressed in the ’013 patent. Pet. 22–24; Pet. Reply 6–8. Patent Owner argues that Kondo is not reasonably pertinent based upon alleged differences between design considerations for UAV batteries compared to hand-held power tool batteries. PO Resp. 21–26, PO Sur-Reply 4–9. Patent Owner, however, does not adequately support those alleged differences with evidence or explain sufficiently why such differences would have caused the ’013 inventors to not take account of the battery latching mechanism used to detachably connect a battery in a different device, such as that taught by Kondo.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“mechanism for its battery, although the Phantom 2 Manual does not provide details regarding such mechanism. Yet Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan would have “been far more likely to obtain, inspect, and experiment with the battery latching mechanism on an actual Phantom 2 rather than engaging in research to find alternatives.” PO Resp. 20. We discount that argument as Patent Owner’s position is unsupported by any legal authority and disregards patent law principles recognizing obviousness over a combination of prior art teachings. Next, Patent Owner asserts that the lack of detail in the Phantom 2 Manual regarding the battery latching mechanism used would “discourage, rather than encourage a POSA to modify the Phantom 2 battery,” with the Phantom 2 that would encourage or motivate a POSA to create a more secure latching mechanism.” Id. at 21. That argument, however, fails to consider that the motivation to combine may be found in a number of sources, including “the background, knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill,” as Petitioner asserts. Pet. Reply 9 (quoting ZUP, LLC, 896 F.3d at 1371). Based upon our review, Petitioner has set forth persuasive reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to review and combine a reference describing battery latching mechanisms for portable electronic devices, such as Kondo, with the Phantom 2 Manual. In particular, Petitioner asserts that such motivation is supplied by the lack of detail in the Phantom 2 Manual regarding the specific battery latching mechanism used. Pet. 22. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to search and review references describing battery latching mechanisms for portable electronic devices to address that deficiency in the Phantom 2 Manual. See id. Further, Petitioner has demonstrated that a skilled artisan would have looked to Kondo because it is directed to and describes such a battery latching mechanism in detail. Id. at 22–23.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,044,013 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,044,013 - SZ Dji Technology Co., Ltd. v. Autel Robotics USA LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 14, 2020 · PGR2019-00014 · APJ Erica A Franklin · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art; Petitioner did not show claims 1–12 indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that the differences in their proposed definitions do not impact Petitioner’s grounds for unpatentability or Patent Owner’s responsive arguments. Pet. Reply 3; PO Sur-Reply 1. We agree and note that our consideration of the issues presented does not turn on which proposed definition is applied. In any event, having considered the evidence and the arguments, we find Petitioner’s rationale for its broader description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be persuasive and supported by record as a whole. Accordingly, for this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the single term for which Petitioner proposed a claim construction, i.e., “fixed with.” Dec. 8–9. In particular, we determined that, in view of Specification, the broadest reasonable construction of the claim phrase “fixed with the clamp button” is “fastened to, attached or placed and not readily moveable with respect to the clamp button, such that it does not merely abut against the clamp button nor is it detachably connected to it.” Id. at 9. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts that “the term ‘fixed with’ needs no construction here because—whether the Board adopts Petitioner’s proposal or Patent Owner’s position—the . . . obviousness analysis will not ultimately be impacted.” PO Resp. 9. In the Reply, Petitioner agrees with Patent Owner that “the construction of ‘fixed with’ is not necessary to resolve the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. Reply 2. Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we agree that no claim terms are in controversy with respect to the asserted obviousness grounds. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). This finding is consistent with our analysis of the indefiniteness challenge, as discussed below in Section II.F.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“(1) Motivation to Combine The parties agree that the Phantom 2 includes some type of latching mechanism for its battery, although the Phantom 2 Manual does not provide details regarding such mechanism. Yet Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan would have “been far more likely to obtain, inspect, and experiment with the battery latching mechanism on an actual Phantom 2 rather than engaging in research to find alternatives.” PO Resp. 22. We discount that argument as Patent Owner’s position is unsupported by any legal authority and disregards patent law principles recognizing obviousness over a combination of prior art teachings. Next, Patent Owner asserts that the lack of detail in the Phantom 2 Manual regarding the battery latching mechanism used would “discourage, rather than encourage a POSA to modify the Phantom 2 battery,” particularly because Petitioner has not identified “any problem associated with the Phantom 2 that would encourage or motivate a POSA to create a more secure latching mechanism.” Id. at 23. That argument, however, fails to consider that the motivation to combine may be found in a number of sense of the person of ordinary skill,” as Petitioner asserts. Pet. Reply 9 (quoting ZUP, LLC, 896 F.3d at 1371). Based upon our review, Petitioner has set forth persuasive reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to review and combine a reference describing battery latching mechanisms for portable electronic devices, such as Kondo, with the Phantom 2 Manual. In particular, Petitioner asserts that such motivation is supplied by the lack of detail in the Phantom 2 Manual regarding the specific battery latching mechanism used. Pet. 23. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to search and review references describing battery latching mechanisms for portable electronic devices to address that deficiency in the Phantom 2 Manual. See id. Further, Petitioner has demonstrated that a skilled artisan would have looked to Kondo because it is directed to and describes such a battery latching mechanism in detail. Id. at 23–24.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artNon analogous artDecided for petitioner
“The parties dispute whether Kondo is analogous art to the claimed invention. Based upon our review of the arguments and evidence, we find that it is. “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Clay, 966 F.2d at 658–59. Patent Owner argues that Kondo and the ’000 patent are not from the same field of endeavor because Kondo is concerned with batteries for handheld power tools and the challenged patent is directed to batteries for UAVs. area describing mechanisms for latching a battery in a portable consumer electronic device. Pet. 24; Pet. Reply 6. We find Petitioner’s description of the field of endeavor to be overly broad as the ’000 patent explicitly states that it “relates to [the] unmanned aerial vehicle field, more particularly, relates to a battery used for unmanned aerial vehicle and an unmanned aerial vehicle.” Ex. 1001, 1:18–20. Moreover, as Patent Owner correctly asserts, the only independent claim of ’000 patent recites “[a] multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle,” comprising components of such a UAV, including its battery compartment, battery, and battery latching mechanism. Id. at 5:34–6:16. In contrast, Kondo explicitly states that it “relates to a novel attachment structure which allows a battery pack including secondary cells to be detachably attached to a battery holder in a power-driven tool.” Ex. 1008, 1:6–9. Moreover, each of Kondo’s claims are directed toward such attachment structure for power-driven tools. Petitioner has not argued persuasively why we should consider either of the fields of endeavor for the challenged patent or Kondo to be more inclusive than what each patent explicitly describes its own field to be. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Kondo is in the same field of endeavor as the ’000 patent. However, our inquiry whether Kondo is analogous art does not end there. Next, we consider whether Kondo is reasonably pertinent to the” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 9,979,000 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,979,000 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 28, 2016 · IPR2014-01184 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 5–14 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the prior art combinations addressed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “streaming” is often used in the context of the immediate processing and playback of audio information. -01181 Dec. on Inst. 7. The ordinary meaning of the term, however, does not require the immediate playback of streaming audio information, and the portions of the ’641 patent identified by Patent Owner do not demonstrate with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision that a narrower claim definition should apply. For example, although the discussion in the ’641 patent of using high-speed communications for streaming an Internet radio station supports Patent Owner’s argument that “streaming audio” may be played immediately as it arrives, Ex. 1001, 7:3–7, the ’641 patent also discloses “downloading” “streaming audio” and “streaming Internet Broadcasts.” Id. at 3:67–4:1, 8:31–35, 17:1–2, 18:1–5. Thus, the disclosures of the ’641 patent are consistent with the dictionary definition of the term “streaming,” which contemplates the transfer of “streaming audio” as a constant stream of data for either immediate or delayed playback. Accordingly, we construe the term “streaming audio signal” as “an audio signal that is transferred in a continuous stream.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. remaining claim terms Patent Owner also proposes constructions for the terms wireless telephone device, a signal representing at least a portion of a song, while, and portable electronic device. PO Resp. 5–6, 8–10, 11–12. Upon review of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that construction of these additional claim terms is not required for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the addition of well-known rechargeable battery technology (as disclosed in Herrod) in the device of Abecassis would have been obvious, at a minimum, to eliminate the need to periodically replace the batteries in the Abecassis device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Abecassis and Herrod are in different fields of endeavor, as both references relate to the communication of data using a cellular phone.8” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary, however, to satisfy the written description requirement of section 112. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, we must also determine whether, despite the lack of express disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Patent Owner was in possession of the invention set forth in claim 8. Id. In conducting this analysis, we are cognizant that “a description which renders obvious a claimed invention is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of that invention.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Dr. Wolf recites the same disclosures as Patent Owner and concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ’812 application demonstrates possession of an invention wherein a radio dial transmitted to a recipient device could be used to cause the transmission of selected information to the recipient device. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 287, 290. Dr. Wolf does not address, however, the specific configuration set forth in claim 8 of the ’641 patent. In particular, Dr. Wolf does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the recited disclosures that the patentee was possession of a method of streaming a song from a portable electronic device to a recipient device in response to the selection of a selectable menu item “presented on a recipient device display.” In contrast, Dr. Quackenbush analyzes the disclosures of the ’641 patent in detail and concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon review of the priority disclosures as a whole, would not understand the patentee to be in possession of the invention set forth in claim 8. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 189–207. Specifically, Dr. Quackenbush concludes that the disclosures of the ’812 application and the ’641 Specification focus on the transmission of data from a storage device and digital engine to an electronic device, and not from a portable electronic device to a recipient device, in response to a selection of a selectable menu item presented on a recipient device display. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 193–203. Upon careful review of both Dr. Wolf’s and Dr. Quackenbush’s” slip op. at 52
Patent outcomesUS 8,532,641 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,532,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 28, 2016 · IPR2014-01182 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 5–14 are unpatentable under § 103 over the prior-art combinations addressed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “streaming” is often used in the context of the immediate processing and playback of audio information. -01181 Dec. on Inst. 7. The ordinary meaning of the term, however, does not require the immediate playback of streaming audio information, and the portions of the ’641 patent identified by Patent Owner do not demonstrate with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision that a narrower claim definition should apply. For example, although the discussion in the ’641 patent of using high-speed communications for streaming an Internet radio station supports Patent Owner’s argument that “streaming audio” may be played immediately as it arrives, Ex. 1001, 7:3–7, the ’641 patent also discloses “downloading” “streaming audio” and “streaming Internet Broadcasts.” Id. at 3:67–4:1, 8:31–35, 17:1–2, 18:1–5. Thus, the disclosures of the ’641 patent are consistent with the dictionary definition of the term “streaming,” which contemplates the transfer of “streaming audio” as a constant stream of data for either immediate or delayed playback. Accordingly, we construe the term “streaming audio signal” as “an audio signal that is transferred in a continuous stream.”” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the addition of well-known rechargeable battery technology (as disclosed in Herrod) in the device of Abecassis would have been obvious, at a minimum, to eliminate the need to periodically replace the batteries in the Abecassis device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Abecassis and Herrod are in different fields of endeavor, as both references relate to the communication of data using a cellular phone.8” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Decided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s identification of corresponding structure and its argument that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply to the term “means for recharging the internal battery” should have been in Petition, and not presented for the first time in reply. PO Resp. 69; Tr. 84:12–85:14; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Moreover, Petitioner does not provide adequate support for its broad identification of corresponding structure in the ’641 patent. For example, we are directed to no disclosure in the ’641 patent indicating that any “battery recharger” may recharge the battery of the device. Thus, we do not adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Patent Owner does not propose a construction for the term “means for recharging the internal battery.” See PO Resp. 5–11, 69–70. The ’641 patent discloses, however, that interface 904 and mount 511 allow for recharging the electronic device using an interface that provides both recharging power and data communications. Ex. 1101, 13:15–32, 18:27–39, 20:52–57. As Petitioner provides persuasive evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add both rechargeable batteries and a USB interface—which provides both recharging power and data connectivity—to the device of Abecassis, under either Petitioner’s proposed construction or the structure for recharging the internal battery set forth in the ’641 patent, the prior art discloses the limitations of claim 14. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 14 would have been obvious over Abecassis, Herrod, and Chennakeshu.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,532,641 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,532,641
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.