• Thorne Research, Inc. v. Trustees Of Dartmouth CollegeAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00268 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by Stamler and, alternatively, obvious over Stamler.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “2. Anticipation2 “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the 2 As noted above, the pre-AIA provisions of 35 U.S.C. apply to the ’086 patent. the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Under § 120, a patent is entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application if (1) the written description of the earlier filed application discloses the invention claimed in the later filed application sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 112; (2) the applications have at least one common inventor; (3) the later application is filed before the issuance or abandonment of the earlier filed application; and (4) the later application contains a reference to the earlier filed application. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 35 U.S.C. § 120 . As discussed above and in our Decision to Institute, the ’086 patent meets this criterion. While we agree with Petitioner that the face of the ’086 patent does not include a citation of the ‘701 application, the specification does contain a clear claim of priority back to the ’701 application. Ex. 1001, col. 1. ll. 7–13; Ex. 1004 1.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the art offered by Patent Owner in the ’1795 IPR, which, as noted above, also involved the ’086 patent, should apply to this proceeding, namely “someone with a Ph.D. in biochemistry or similar field in the pharmaceutical sciences, with familiarity and experience with pharmacokinetics.” Pet. 33. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition and, indeed, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Amiji, used the same definition in his analysis. Ex. 2014 ¶ 21. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and supports Petitioner’s definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties, and find that our initial construction is proper for the reasons set forth in the ’1795 proceeding. Ex. 1018 12–14. We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction that calls for an isolation step separate from the process used to manufacture synthetic NR.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,383,086 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,383,086
• Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,807,826
• Vudu, LLC v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01688 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are unpatentable over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. does it present its own definition. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” “SegmentBase,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its briefing. We need not construe any claim term to resolve any issues before us, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11

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

    “not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely because paragraph 253 uses the term “[h]ereinafter” before it discloses “two simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited 8 Ex. 2005 is Application No. 16/168,933 (“the ’933 application”). in limitations [38.6], [40.6], and [46.6]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicates a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. MTA 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 38, 40, and 46 do not find sufficient written description support in the ’644 application nor in the ’933 application, whether considered individually or collectively, and thus, these claims contain new matter.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “rationale for combining DIS 23009-1 with M20060, Petitioner persuasively contends that: A POSA would have been motivated to add the additional “metadata” described in M20060 to the MPDs described in the DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 references in order to enable the client to choose the most suitable version of media content among alternative versions of media content. For example, M20060 describes that the additional metadata (e.g., the extended accessibility element and the usedWith, equivalentTo, bitDepth, minBitDepth, and maxBitDepth attributes) helps “both users and clients to select appropriate representations” by, for example, “1) supporting accessibility, 2) describing relationships of representations, and 3) describing media’s bit depth.” Moreover, a POSA would have had an expectation of success in modifying the MPDs in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 to include the additional metadata described below because it simply would have been a matter of adding additional metadata to the MPD XML schemas described in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1. Id. (citing Ex. 1094 ¶ 33; Ex. 1097 § 1, 1). Dr. Bestavros persuasively explains that “M20060 expressly references the DIS 23001-6 reference and proposes specific modifications to the MPEG DASH metadata included in the MPD XML schema.” Ex. 1094 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1097 § 1, 1 (introduction of M20060); Ex. 1097, 7 (references cited by M20060)).” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 10,270,830 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,270,830
• Vudu, Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01689 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 11, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend proposing claims 31–35 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 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 (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor does it present its own definition in any of its briefing. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the Specification of the ’414 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in any of its briefing. 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The newly-cited portion in paragraph 232 does not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited in limitations [31.11], [32.12], and [35.7]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicate a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 31, 32, and 35 do not have sufficient written description support in the ’644 application and the ’092 application, either individually or collectively, and as such, contain new matter.” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “are not entitled to a priority date earlier than March 16, 2012 (the filing date of PCT ’922), because the disclosure of KR10-2011-0023271 does not support at least the limitations of: “the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and the “SegmentTemplate” recited in independent claims 25. Patent Owner has not asserted, after institution, that the challenged claims are entitled to an earlier date. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indicating that patent owner bears a burden of production in arguing that the asserted references are not prior art based on entitlement to an earlier priority date). As such and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that DIS 23001-6, DIS 23009-1, and 3GPP TS 26.247 qualify as prior art to the challenged claims, because Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the references were publicly accessible prior to the applicable priority date of March 16, 2012.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,313,414 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,313,414
• ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00112 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 lacks written description support; all petition grounds were included.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “content for output.” Id. at 89. We determine, however, that Petitioner’s argument under Step 2A Prong One that claim 1 is directed to the “obtaining content for output” is not substantially different from the Examiner’s determination that claims 1‒20 recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Compare Pet. 37–88 (citing e.g. Electric Power), with Ex. 2001, 193–194 (also citing Electric Power). In both cases, the argument is the same or substantially the same, i.e., that similarly identified subject matter of the claim is obtaining (collecting) data and displaying (outputting) it. Nevertheless, as to Step 2A Prong Two, we determine that the claims at issue in the ’096 prosecution differ in material ways from the ’903 patent claims at issue in this PGR. Specifically, the ’096 patent claims recite a touchscreen interface not recited in the ’903 patent claims. Additionally, the ’903 claims focus on the “output device” as performing the patented steps but in the ’096 prosecution history the “‘information apparatus performs the patented steps and “is integral to the claims” (as the Applicant argued). See Ex. 2008 [comparison of ’096 prosecution claims and ’903 claims]; Ex. 2001, 150; see also Pet. 89 (“the claims at issue in the ’067 application were different than the claims of the ’903 patent addressed here.”). rejection and arguments in the ’096 prosecution history turns on whether the claims in this PGR recite different elements that must be determined to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., Prong Two of Step 2A). Petitioner argues that an essential element different than the ’096 claims, i.e. the output device, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not amount to an improvement to computer functionality. Pet. 37–72. We find this a close case. Nevertheless, due to the differences in the claims, we determine that the Examiner’s withdrawal of the § 101 rejection in light of the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific technical solution is not substantially the same argument that Petitioner’s presents in the Petition as to Prong Two of Step 2A.” slip op. at 22

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

    “C. Lack of Written Description Support Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description for the same reasons it contends the ’903 patent is PGR eligible. Pet. 13–36. The Specification of the ’903 patent has substantially the same disclosures as the Specification of the ’413 application relied on by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 20) to which the ’903 patent claims priority. Having determined that the disclosures in the ’903 patent Specification and the ’413 application is insufficient to provide written description support for the at least claim 1, we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable for the same reasons. Thus, we exercise our discretion and institute post grant review of claims 1–20 challenged under this ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).” slip op. at 33

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

    “in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that an output system/device could be (or include) an information apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 24. We determine that Patent Owner’s argument has a logical flaw––i.e., the fact that a particular device could be used alternately as an information apparatus or an output device does not necessarily mean that it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combined information apparatus/output device and have the new combined device perform all the additional functions required by the claims. “The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.” Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rivera”). “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification . . . . It extends only to that which is 1997). Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’413 application teaching that an “output device” can perform the functions of the “information apparatus” including its interactions with the “output device.” For example, claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving, by the output system . . . output data from at least one server of the one or more servers over the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 37:28–32. At this stage, we find sufficiently persuasive Petitioner’s argument, which we discuss above, that the only written description support for an “output device” that performs the claimed functions by accessing the Internet provided by Patent Owner is not an “output device” but an “information apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. at 27–29.” slip op. at 29

  § 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Mayo · Bilski · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 11,029,903
• ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00111 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the challenged patent was not eligible for post-grant review; it found the priority applications supported claims 6 and 19 and did not reach the § 101 ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the above reasons, we are persuaded that the ’031 patent’s priority applications (pre-AIA applications) provide written description support for the claim limitation that “that the “output system” (claim 6) or “output device” (claim 19) can be an “Internet appliance.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claims 6 and 19 have an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, claims 6 and 19 do not render the ’031 patent eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 6(f)(2)(A). Accordingly, the information presented in the Petition does not establish that the ’031 patent is eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Finally, the definition of output device in the priority ’765 Application (as in the Specification of the ’031 patent) is that an “[o]utput device [] is an electronic system capable of outputting digital content … Any device capable of playing or reading digital content in voice (e.g., music, speech) or data (e.g., text, document) is also a possible output device.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (alterations in original) (quoting Ex. 1011 (’765 application) ¶ 89, Ex. 1001, 16:29–41). An Internet appliance does fall within that definition. The ’765 Application also contemplates that an output device is a network device accessible through an IP address. See Ex. 1011, 14 (referring to “[i]dentification of an output device” by “IP address”). Put another way, the priority application adequately describes a device fitting the description of” slip op. at 14

  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,846,031
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2022 · PGR2021-00108 · APJ Aaron W Moore · PGR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable, including because the asserted combination did not link rule generation to the packet correlation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Obviousness Analysis A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, primarily: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.6 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–2, 7–8, 10, 12–13, and 17–18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 18–64. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2-3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’797 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. C.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner argues that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “determining . . . a first plurality of log entries” and “determining . . . a second plurality of log entries” is “identifying” or “ascertaining” log entries.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he terms “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the first plurality of packets received by the network device,” and “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the second plurality of packets transmitted by the network device” (“provisioning rules”) . . . should be given their plain and ordinary meaning—rules configured to identify packets.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Neither party, however, argues that the prior art arguments presented in the Petition turn on the construction of these terms. Instead, it appears that they are raised as claim construction issues only because Petitioner is challenging the language under Section 112. We will discuss the Section 112 arguments below, but do not see a dispute about the constructions offered by the parties above the makes a difference in the prior art analysis and, therefore, do not construe these terms at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “respect to this limitation for several reasons, including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning” is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not “based on the determined correlation.” Prelim. Resp. 38. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the determined correlation, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the first host.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,931,797
• Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC / Fresenius Kabi Swissbiosim GmbH v. Coherus Biosciences, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2021 · PGR2019-00064 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing requests, leaving in place denial of institution based on the merits of the written-description and enablement challenges.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. DISCUSSION A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner’s arguments are unpersuasive because our construction of “stable” does not exclude the preferred embodiments. As Petitioner acknowledges, “[t]he Board did not construe ‘stable’ to be limited to formulations that are as stable as Humira or lose 20% of activity upon storage.” Id. at 3. Although our construction encompasses the “most” preferred embodiment (e.g., those that do not lose more than 5% of their activity during two years of long-term storage), it also encompasses other embodiments that are considered less preferred but nonetheless within the scope of what is defined to be “stable” in the specification, i.e., compositions that do “not lose more than 20%, or more preferably 15%, or even more preferably 10%” of activity. Ex. 1001, 9:28–33. Furthermore, consistent with the specification, our construction of “stable” encompasses embodiments in which stability is determined by comparison to the commercial formulation of adalimumab known in the prior art, i.e., Humira. Decision 8–9. We find no basis to construe “stable” to be limited to the only most preferred embodiment by requiring a loss of no more than 5% activity. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating “a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment”).” slip op. at 3

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable

    “These arguments are also unpersuasive. As stated in the Decision: [W]e find that the specification provides a detailed disclosure of the testing used to assess stability (using Humira as the control), and identifies specific ingredients to be included and excluded from the claimed composition, and further identifies the pH that is necessary to achieve the claimed stability. Although there may be certain concentrations of adalimumab or certain types of buffers and sugars that may render the compositions more difficult to stabilize, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why a POSA would not have known how to adjust or select those ingredients in order to achieve the claimed stable aqueous pharmaceutical composition. Decision 17. As further stated in the Decision: Moreover, even if a POSA would have needed to test whether a particular composition was stable, “[t]he fact that some experimentation is necessary does not preclude enablement; what is required is that the amount of experimentation ‘must not be unduly extensive.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Indeed, even “a considerable amount of experimentation is permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the specification in question provides a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed to enable the determination of how to practice a desired embodiment of the invention claimed.” Id. (citing Ex parte Jackson, 217 USPQ 804, 807 (BPAI 1982)). Id. at 17–18. Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that we committed legal or factual error in making the foregoing determinations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in determining that Petitioner did not satisfy its burden with respect to the lack of enablement ground for claims 1–12.” slip op. at 5

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “the specification identifies with sufficient clarity each of the ingredients that must be included as part of the claimed composition (i.e., adalimumab, a buffer, polysorbate 80, and a sugar) and further provides a reason to exclude the ingredients that must not be included in theclaimed composition (i.e., mannitol, a citrate/phosphate buffer combination, and sodium chloride). Id. at 13–14. The Decision also explained how one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventors possessed the claimed invention: Patent Owner identifies teachings in the specification indicating the structural features required for achieving a stable adalimumab composition, which include: 1) avoiding the citrate/phosphate buffer combination in favor of another more stable buffer (such as an acetate buffer); 2) including polysorbate 80 as a stabilizer; 3) removing sodium chloride (NaCl) from the formulation; 4) using a sugar or polyol as the tonicity modifier in place of mannitol/NaCl; and 5) maintaining a pH of at least 5 (with an optimal pH near 5.2). Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:42–44, 21:40–47, 37:25–38:4, 38:1–7, 61:24–25). Patent Owner further asserts, and we agree, that the specification “provides working examples that demonstrate comparable or superior stability to the commercial Humira® formulation” and that Petitioner fails to demonstrate why a POSA would doubt that the formulations that demonstrated improved stability relative to Humira would be stable. Id. at 60–61. Id. at 14. Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that we committed legal or factual error in making the foregoing determinations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in determining that Petitioner did not satisfy its burden with respect to the lack of written description ground for claims 1–12.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,155,039
• Genome & Company v. The University Of ChicagoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2020 · PGR2019-00002 · APJ John E Schneider · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1–17 and 19–28 for lack of enablement and obviousness; claims 18 and 29 for obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Braun, Petitioner’s proffered expert, defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as having an advanced degree or its substantial equivalent in the biological sciences, including specifically in the fields of immunology, microbiology and the microbiome, and oncology, coupled with research experience in those fields. Ex. 1002 ¶ 40. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally, PO Resp. We determine that Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the current record. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description. We also note that the applied 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 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “interprets claim terms in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b) (2018);3 Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming applicability of broadest reasonable construction standard to trial proceeding before the USPTO.). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and conclude that the unpredictability of the art weighs in favor of finding non-enablement with respect to CPIs in general. While we agree with Patent Owner that CPIs can be effective in treating some cancers, the Specification and the evidence of record show that all of the effective CPIs are antibodies. For example, all of the CPIs listed in the chart of page 10 of Patent Owner’s Response are antibodies. Tr. 39. We find nothing in the record, other than attorney argument that one skilled in the art would know how to make of use other CPIs, such as an interfering nucleic acid molecule, in the claimed method. For example, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s expert did not consider CPIs other than antibodies, in reaching his conclusions regarding enablement. Pet. Reply, 4; Ex. 1042, 19–29. The record also does not support the contention that one skilled in the art could predict the action of non-antibody CPIs based on the action of an antibody CPI. The art and the Specification identify one non-antibody CPI, and the Fe region of human IgG. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 20–23; Ex. 2034, 206. At the time the ’302 patent was filed, studies of this potential CPI indicated that it acted differently than antibody CPIs and that efficacy was lacking compared to other CPIs. Id. This evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that the use of CPIs, especially non-antibody CPIs, was unpredictable at the time the ’302 patent was filed. We also agree with Petitioner that the selection of Bifidobacterium was unpredictable. The evidence of record supports Petitioner’s contention that the immunostimulatory activity of Bifidobacterium varies from strain to strain, even within the same species. Pet. 44–45. O’Mahony teaches that Bifidobacterium longum strain AH1714 is immunosuppressive while another stain of B. longum exhibits immunostimulatory activity. Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 103– 109. Similarly, Lopez evaluated 12 strains of four different species of Bifidobacterium and concluded that the properties exhibited by Bifidobacterium varied among the strains. Ex. 1038, Abstr. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the credibility of O’Mahony and Lopez are unpersuasive. Patent Owner made specific representations to the Examiner on several occasions that strain AH1714 disclosed in O’Mahony was immunosuppressive to support Patent Owner’s argument that one would not combine an immunosuppressive agent with an immunostimulatory agent. See, e.g. Ex. 1014, 8–9. Patent Owner suggests that it was not asserting that the statements in O’Mahony were accurate, but merely argues that those statements would have led away from making the combination proposed by the Examiner. PO Sur-Reply 10. This argument fails in its logic. If one skilled in the art upon reading O’Mahony would have recognized the alleged errors in O’Mahony’s teachings and disregarded them as Patent Owner now combination advanced by the Examiner in prosecution as Patent Owner argued. With respect to Lopez, Lopez states unambiguously that the immune effects of Bifidobacteria are species and strain specific. Petitioner has advanced evidence that those skilled in the art accepted these conclusions, citing Lopez in subsequent articles. Pet. Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1044). Moreover, the present inventors found Lopez to be sufficiently credible to incorporate the teachings of Lopez in their entirety into the instant Specification of the ’302 patent. Ex. 1001, col. 37, l. 62–col. 38, l. 4.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledEnabledMixed

    “evidence of record and conclude that applying the all the Wands factors, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–17 and 19–28 are not enabled. In reviewing the evidence of record, we find that the nature of the invention that involves very broad claims, the high level of skill required in such an unpredictable art, and the dearth of working examples and lack of specific guidance on the full range of CPIs and cancers challenged claims are not enabled. Because claims 18 and 29 require known CPIs, however, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that these claims are not enabled.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,855,302 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,855,302
• Rimfrost As. v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic As.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01730 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable across the stated anticipation and obviousness grounds; the contingent motion to amend with substitute claims 21–29 is denied because those claims are obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At institution, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s definition of an ordinarily skilled artisan, and determined that the prior art itself was sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Inst. Dec. 8. We note that Patent Owner states that it “accepts [Petitioner’s] definition of a POSITA.” PO Resp. 15. Accordingly, for this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, while maintaining that the prior art demonstrates the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art). Moreover, we have reviewed the credentials of Drs. Tallon and Hoem, and consider each of them to be qualified to provide their opinion on the level of skill and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Such broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decision maker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention. Although it is rarely feasible to attach a precise limit to ‘about,’ the usage can usually be understood in light of the technology embodied in the invention.” Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996). After considering the parties’ arguments and reviewing the Specification of the ’765 patent, we conclude that Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the intrinsic evidence. Although the ’765 patent does not explicitly address the issue of “about,” the meaning of the term can be discerned from a careful reading of the Specification. Example 8 of the ’765 patent reports the analysis of phospholipid available Krill product. Ex. 1001, col. 31, l, 46–col. 32, l. 42. Table 22, reproduced above, reports the calculated values for the various phospholipids in values to a tenth of a percent. Id. at col. 32, ll. 18–38. In the discussion of the table, the values are rounded to the nearest whole number, not the nearest tenth. Id. at col. 32, ll. 11–15. This is consistent with the approach advanced by Petitioner. IPR2018-00295, Paper 35, 12.3 Similarly here, we find that although the Specification does not explicitly define the term “about,” its meaning may be discerned from the manner by which the Specification refers to reported values for phospholipid profiles of krill oil. Ex. 1001, 32:18–44 (Table 22). In the discussion of the lipids reported in Table 22, the values are rounded to the nearest whole number, not the nearest tenth. Id. at 32:47–52. This is more consistent with the approach advanced by Petitioner than by Patent Owner. Thus, as determined in that Final Written Decision, and for the reasons set forth therein, “the term ‘greater than about 5% w/w’ shall be construed to mean ‘greater than 4.5% w/w.’” IPR2018-00295, Paper 35, 13.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We have considered the arguments of the parties and the evidence of record and conclude that claims 5 and 6 are not anticipated by Catchpole. While we agree with Petitioner that Catchpole teaches compositions that can Catchpole discloses a krill oil composition having that amount of acylalkyphospholipids. Catchpole teaches a method of separating lipid materials from a feed material. Ex. 1009, 4. The feed material used in Catchpole may be derived from “terrestrial animals, marine animals, terrestrial plants, marine plants, or micro-organisms such as microalgae, yeast and bacteria. Preferably the feed material is derived from sheep, goat, pig, mouse, water buffalo, camel, yak, horse, donkey, llama, bovine or human.” Id. at 7. Catchpole does not specifically disclose a Krill extract that contains greater than 10% acylalkyphospholipids. The only specific disclosure of the acylalkyphospholipid content of krill oil is in Table 16 discussed above, which discloses an acylalkyphospholipid content of 4.8%, less than the 6% and 7% recited in claims 5 and 6. Based on the foregoing we conclude that claims 5 and 6 are not anticipated by Catchpole. E. Ground 2 - Obviousness Based on Catchpole Combined with Sampalis” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed Cir. 1999)). “It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context.” MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Webpower, Inc. v. WAG (Final Written Decision). The application of collateral estoppel is not limited to patent claims that are identical. Ohio Willow Wood, 735 F.3d at 1342. “Rather, it is the identity of the issues that were litigated that determines whether collateral estoppel should apply. . . . If the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and the adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity, collateral estoppel applies.” Id. As our reviewing court has explained, collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating an issue if: (1) prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enters., Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,072,752 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,072,752

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.