• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · PGR2025-00023 · APJ Per Curiam · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’629 publication; the claims are not entitled to the 2013 priority date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSITA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining that “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSITA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSITA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 22; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find a POSITA with respect to the claims of the ’109 patent would have had a two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSITA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither party proposes an express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 22–23 (not proposing any constructions); PO Resp. 23 (“Patent Owner agrees that the terms can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.”). However, Patent Owner states that some of Petitioner’s arguments implicitly construe claim 1 in an erroneous manner. PO Resp. 23–28. “For example, Petitioner argues that ‘an adequate written description would have to either disclose representative examples of the possible working cascades of various proteins or some accurate structural feature of the claimed proteins that allow them to function in the claimed assay as a whole.’” Id. at 23 (quoting Pet. 35). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to what Petitioner’s argument allegedly implies, “Claim 1 is directed to a method for producing an endotoxin assay agent” and does not require the use – Owner that claim 1 does not require the use of endotoxin assay agent. However, the claimed endotoxin assay agent must be capable of performing the assay, as counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged. Tr. 83:5–9.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, to show that the claims of the ’109 patent are unpatentable for lack of written description, Petitioner would have needed to show that the specification as filed (i.e., the ’420 application) fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the July 3, 2023, filing date. Petitioner did not. Pet. 23–24. Nor does Petitioner’s declarant offer testimony that could support such a showing. See Ex. 1003 ¶50 (“I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art in this field for purposes of determining what the inventors disclosed as their invention as of December 10, 2013.”), ¶51 (“Whenever I offer an opinion in this declaration about the knowledge of a POSA, the manner in which a POSA would have understood the claims of the ’109 patent or its description, the manner in have been led to do based on the prior art, I am referencing the December 10, 2013 timeframe.”). In our Institution Decision, we stated: Although the ’420 application is essentially identical to the ’767 application, the person of ordinary skill in 2013 is not the same as in 2023. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he [written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the information presented in the Petition, which is limited to the perspective of a 2013 POSITA, does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable for lack of written description. Inst. Dec. 12 (alterations in original). During trial, Petitioner did not present any further arguments in support of Ground 1. See generally Pet. Reply. Petitioner has failed to prove that claims 1–9 are unpatentable for failing to meet the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the evidence before us shows that, in 2013, a POSITA knew how to recombinantly express genes in expression systems such as CHO or HEK-293 cell lines, the evidence shows that this was true only for genes whose genetic sequences were known or readily available. See, e.g., Ex. 1069, 34:11–22 (“Q. Okay. So you would agree that the creation of the recombinant protein requires the underlying sequence of, as you said, the original animal? A. Of course.”) Because it is undisputed that, in 2013, the genetic sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C was unknown, or least not publicly available, Falko-Gunter does not support a finding of adequate written description here. See, e.g., Tr. 48:18–19 (“Patent Owner agrees that there had not been, as of 2013, the full length cDNA sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C published.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,959,109 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,959,109
• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00440 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 21 is unpatentable as obvious over Mizumura with either the ’498 PCT or McClymont; the Revised Contingent Motion to Amend proposing claim 22 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “overlap to a significant degree, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in a discipline related to biological sciences and having had at least two years of work experience. However, the parties’ proposals differ slightly in the specific subjects in which a POSA would have had a doctoral degree, and whether the person’s work experience must have been directly related to horseshoe crab Factor C. As an initial matter, we find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 19; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. with respect to the claims of the ’318 patent would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related discipline, and about two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 13

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

    “C. Claim Construction The parties agree that “the terms in claim 21 can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning for purposes of this proceeding” without further construction. Pet. 19–20; PO Resp. 11. Because express claim construction is not needed to resolve the issues in this case, we need not, and do not, construe expressly any claim term for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only 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 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Carrying Out the Invention section, that “[t]he Factor C of the present invention is a Factor C derived from a horseshoe crab,” and states later in the same section that “[e]xamples of the horseshoe crab include . . . Limulus polyphemus.” Ex. 1006, 40. However, none of the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner relate directly to L. polyphemus; instead, the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner are directed to other species, in particular the Japanese horseshoe crab T. tridentatus. Further, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Schaefer, conceded that the ’767 application does not contain Factor C sequence information for L. polyphemus. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 44:25–45:23. Although “[n]o length requirement exists for a disclosure to adequately describe an invention,” Falko-Gunter, 448 F.3d at 1365–1366, we are persuaded that a POSA would not, based on the totality of the above disclosures, reasonably understand that the inventors were in possession of the claimed HEK-293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, in view of the state of the art as of December 10, 2013. In this regard, we note that adequate written description of a biological molecule, such as a HEK293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, requires “more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it”; instead, what is required is “‘a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,’ not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” The Regents of the” slip op. at 21

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

    “Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Neither do we see Petitioner’s arguments regarding the December 10, 2013 priority date to be “mutually opposed” as Dr. Schaefer testified. Ex. 1067, 216:4– 24. Instead, we credit evidence of record, including Dr. Jain’s testimony and the February 22, 2018 Mizumura Declaration, that existence of the full sequence would permit a more complete analysis and that such an analysis would provide a POSA with a reasonable expectation that the claimed L. polyphemus recombinant protein would have a residual activity within the claimed range. See, e.g., Ex. 1029, 2–5; Ex. 1010, 48; Ex. 1065, 117:14– 130:24 (explaining that comparison of partial sequences in the Tokunaga 1991 publication showed “difference around the cleavage site” between T. tridentatus and L. polyphemus but comparison of the full sequence revealed that “the catalytic triad of histidine, serine, aspartate . . . to be more similar between Tachypleus and Limulus”). Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner’s reliance on a statement made by Dr. Mizumura in a declaration submitted during prosecution of the ’767 Application fails to fill the gap in the analysis” regarding reasonable expectation of success, because the declaration “offers no evidence of the percentage of conserved amino acid substitutions that exist to support the conclusion that a POSA would have expected residual activity to be maintained between Tachypleus tridentatus and Limulus polyphemus” PO Resp. 47. However, as noted above, Dr. Mizumura provides an alignment of Factor C proteins from the two different species of horseshoe crab, determines that the similarity between the amino acid sequence is 99.5%, states that the amino acid residues that can undergo N-type sugar chain that L. polyphemus, like T. tridentatus, would also be less susceptible to inhibition by ions. Ex. 1029, 4–5. For the reasons discussed above, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s reasonable expectation of success argument is “nothing more than conclusory assertions with no support.” PO Resp. 46. Rather, we find Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSA would have had reason to combine the teachings of Mizumura and the ’498 PCT, with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the Factor C protein recited in claim 21.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,236,318 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,236,318
• Catalyst Orthoscience Inc. v. Shoulder Innovations, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2024 · PGR2024-00042 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR challenging claims 1–16, finding the first five Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “during the conference and in the Minute Entry, and in the court’s subsequent Order Regarding Schedule. We also note that the evidence shows the district court may intend to reschedule the trial to a date substantially earlier than March 9, 2026. See Ex. 2010, 5; Ex. 1029, 10−11. However, given that the Order does not unambiguously set a trial date for December 1, 2025, or even sometime in December 2025 or January 2026 (see Ex. 1028), we decline to speculate as to what date the court may ultimately select for trial. Moreover, the record shows that Petitioner has consistently opposed moving the trial to a date earlier than March 9, 2026. See Ex. 2010, 5; Ex. 1026, 2−4; Ex. 1029, 11. We view Petitioner’s opposition as creating yet more ambiguity as to the trial date in the co-pending litigation. Therefore, we find that factor 2 is neutral because the exact trial date in district court is uncertain.” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot reached

    “if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo 4. This standard is only met “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49 (Vidal Oct. 4, 2022) (precedential) (citing Guidance Memo 4). We have reviewed Petitioner’s challenges and Patent Owner’s arguments. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner’s challenges have not risen to the threshold of compelling merits. Before addressing the parties’ arguments regarding the asserted grounds, we address: (a) the level of ordinary skill in the art, (b) claim construction, and (c) relevant principles of law; and we provide (d) overviews of the asserted art.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that its proffered additional level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the experience Petitioner describes. See Pet. 16. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Petitioner and supplemented by Patent Owner, because, based on the current record, it is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’561 patent and prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “In this regard, Mr. Fallin testifies that I have decades of experience working directly with joint replacement systems, including hip joint replacement systems, knee replacement systems, and facet joint replacement systems. My work on these joint replacement systems included my direct engagement or supervision of and professionals in the inventing, designing, fabricating, testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring regulatory compliance, commercializing, and patenting of these systems. Ex. 1002 ¶ 10. Mr. Fallin also testifies that his experience “includes working directly with supervising professionals whose responsibilities included designing, developing, and commercializing joint replacement systems and similar device[s].” Id. ¶ 67 As such, Mr. Fallin identifies “decades” of experience with joint replacement systems. Ex. 1002 ¶ 10. Moreover, Patent Owner does not persuasively explain why Mr. Fallin’s “direct engagement” and “working directly with,” as well as “supervision” of, other individuals designing joint replacement systems, does not at least imply personal design experience. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Therefore, we determine that the current record reflects that Mr. Fallin is qualified to testify as to the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,771,561
• Bayer Cropscience LP / Monsanto Company v. Corteva Agriscience LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01037 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–29 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’283 patent’s challenged claims. We decline to deny the Petition on the basis of discretion under § 325(d). We institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “35 U.S.C. § 325(d). In evaluating whether to deny institution under 325(d), the Board has considered several non-exclusive factors: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior art or a patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether a petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Office erred in evaluating the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first para.). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to whether the art or arguments in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in the Office’s prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Under Advanced Bionics’s two-part framework, we first determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Id. at 8, 10. If “either condition of [the] first part of Office has been shown. Id. at 8, 10.” slip op. at 68

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing. Petitioner’s proposal could have been more specific, but it is not so lacking that the institution burden is unmet. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in a “relevant discipline,” Petitioner is referring to the technical areas it cited previously, such as protein/enzyme biochemistry. Pet. 18. Petitioner’s definition does not ignore subject matter like “transgenic plants” because it states that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts here (e.g., protein biochemistry, enzyme activity, and substrate selectivity) to such plants. Moreover, although Patent Owner complains about Petitioner’s POSA definition, it does not offer its own or explain why Petitioner’s challenge fails under any alternative definition. At this stage, Patent Owner’s suggestion that Dr. Hausinger lacks relevant expertise or qualifications of at least a POSA is unpersuasive. The ’283 patent relies on Dr. Hausinger’s own prior work. See, e.g., 1002, 18:44–50 (citing Hogan (Ex. 1027)), 50:51–55 (citing Fukumori (Ex. 2001)) (both references co-authored by Dr. Hausinger). Patent Owner also cites Dr. Hausinger’s work as evidencing what “skilled artisans” understood about the claimed and prior art technology, including αKGD dioxygenases, which is a focus of the parties’ arguments. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8 (“Thus, as reflected in Hogan and Hotopp [(co-authored by Dr. Hausinger)], skilled artisans understood the structure-function relationships of Group II αKG-dependent dioxygenases . . . .”); Ex. 1029 (Hotopp 2002)). During prosecution, Dr. Wright’s declaration relied on Dr. Hausinger’s research. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 462 (Wright I ¶ 13 (citing Hotopp)), 658 (Wright II artisans”)). And, Applicant’s other declarant, Dr. Nair, who testified about the POSA’s perspective at the time of the invention, appears to have academic and prior work history focused on chemistry, biochemistry, and enzymology without significant background in subjects like “controlling weeds” about which Patent Owner questions Dr. Hausinger’s qualifications. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 590–591.17 Patent Owner will have the chance to cross-examine Dr. Hausinger in this proceeding. If Patent Owner feels we should discount Dr. Hausinger’s testimony due to lack of qualifications, it may raise such argument in trial. For now, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, with the” slip op. at 23

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

    “C. Claim Construction In inter partes review, we construe claims using the same claim construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA and the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only as needed to resolve the matters in dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 17 The closest work we see from Dr. Nair related to herbicide resistant transgenic plants is his 2019 paper co-written with the applicant’s employees (e.g., Dr. Wright), which paper appears to be a follow-on investigation into the AAD-1 proteins of the patent. Ex. 1008, 594–595; Ex. 1019, Abstr. proceeding. Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 20. It is not apparent at this stage that any terms need further interpretation to resolve the matters in dispute.18” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,149,283
• Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2021 · IPR2021-01108 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–17, 19, 20, 25, and 33–35 under § 325(d), finding the same arguments were previously presented and no material examiner error was shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10

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

    “review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “II. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Petitioner relies upon Chu ’330 in both of the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 8

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

    “As such, we find that Petitioner has failed to show (1) the ’768 patent is not entitled to a priority date before April 15, 2011, (2) the ’436 patent’s parent applications in the’768 patent family did not properly incorporate by reference the ’886 provisional, and (3) the amendments adding the subject matter from the ’886 provisional improperly introduced new matter. Pet. 18−30.” slip op. at 23

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,529,768
• Lippert Components, Inc. v. Days CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 24, 2019 · IPR2018-00777 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Uriarte and obvious over Uriarte and Fukumoto; the motion to amend claims 15 and 16 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “nothing in the claim language itself that requires the sensor to be aligned directly along the vehicle’s longitudinal and lateral axes. Rather, the Sensor Limitations more broadly require that the sensor “sense[s] pitch and roll of the vehicle relative to a reference level plane” to produce a signal “representing the vehicle pitch and roll.” Ex. 1001, 12:61–64 (claim 12), 13:16–19 (claim 13). Any sensor that determines the relative positioning of the vehicle’s longitudinal-lateral plane with respect to the reference level plane will thereby “sense” the pitch and roll of the vehicle, to produce a signal “representing” the pitch and roll.” slip op. at 12

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

    “3. Remaining Claim Terms No further explicit construction of any claim term is needed to resolve the issues presented here. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only 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 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’693 patent “would have either a bachelor’s degree in engineering, preferably mechanical or electrical, or at least five years of work experience in the field of vehicle leveling systems and related equipment.” Pet. 10; Ex. 1006 ¶ 18. “Patent Owner accepts this level,” despite the slightly different formulation offered by Dr. Sturges. PO Resp. 11; Ex. 2004, 5. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner, and accepted by Patent Owner, is consistent with the ’693 patent and the prior art of record. We, therefore, adopt that level in the present Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine it would not require undue experimentation to find the proper leveling condition to use in Uriarte for stopping an automatic leveling operation, because Uriarte itself provides the answer: it is when Clr = Crf and Crr = Clf. Ex. 1004, 7:67–8:16; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 41–43; Ex. 1015 ¶ 21. Given that disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would resolve the later nonsensical disclosure as intending to state the vehicle is level when Clr/Crf = 1 and Crr/Clf = 1, without any experimentation at all, much less undue experimentation. Ex. 1015 ¶ 21. Dr. Sturges’s failure to address the first disclosure in Uriarte in his Declaration, when reaching his conclusion that “[t]here are no other disclosures in Uriarte indicating a level condition, except by manual ‘feel’ and control,” renders that conclusion unreliable. Ex. 2004, 8 (emphasis added). Moreover, when pressed during deposition, Dr. Sturges testified a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Uriarte’s vehicle 10 is “at least near level” “when the capacitors show equal value.” Ex. 1013, 71:9–72:3. Thus, we determine Petitioner has met its burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to carry out an automatic leveling operation based on the Uriarte disclosure. In particular, the stopping condition indicating the vehicle is level occurs when Clr = Crf and Crr = Clf, or equivalently when Clr/Crf = 1 and Crr/Clf = 1.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,619,693 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,619,693
• Propel Orthodontics, LLC v. Orthoaccel Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2019 · IPR2018-00296 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10–16, and 19–26 are anticipated by Lowe; claims 9, 17, 18, 26, and 27 are obvious over Lowe and Ting.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “the orthodontic device for the range 1 to 20 minutes daily in either the ’807 Provisional Application or the ’849 Parent Application to Lowe. Compare Ex. 1004, 7, with Ex. 1006, 7. Consequently, the question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have derived, i.e., recognized, the claimed range of “1 to 20 minutes” from the context of the disclosure in these prior applications. See Lockwood, at 1572 (“[A] prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.”). As discussed below, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have concluded that the inventor was in possession of the claimed “1 to 20 minute daily” range based on the disclosure in the prior provisional and parent applications.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We determined in our Decision on Institution that the level of ordinary skill in the art includes a person with a degree in orthodontics and several years of experience as a working orthodontist, and also a person with an education and several years of experience in osteogenesis and bone remodeling, or an equivalent field, in the context of tooth movement. Inst. Dec. 8. On the complete record now before us we find this level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with our review of the evidence before us, including the prior art. Neither party proposes any further changes or objects to such a level of skill.9 See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply. Therefore, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art includes a person with a degree in orthodontics and several years of experience as a working orthodontist, and also a person with an education and several years of experience in osteogenesis and bone remodeling, or an equivalent field, in the context of tooth movement.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “procedures, such as for teeth cleaning, are used for periods of time shorter than 20 minutes is not persuasive because no evidence or explanation is provided of any functional or temporal relationship between the objectives of teeth cleaning and teeth realignment through bone remodeling. PO Resp. 23–24 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 28). Dr. Ricupito testifies that because the recommended time for tooth brushing is 2 minutes, “one of ordinary skill would have read the disclosure of a range of times for use of a vibratory device to include times similar to those for other devices in the field at the time (e.g., 30 seconds to 2 minutes).”10 Ex. 2010 ¶ 28. Dr. Ricupito, however, does not support this comparison with any evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a causal relationship between teeth cleaning and teeth realignment from the orthodontic and dental fields. See id. Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Dr. Ricupito’s testimony does not provide any facts, data, or analysis to support the opinion stated. Merely repeating an argument from the Petition in the declaration of a proposed expert does not 10 If we were to give Dr. Ricupito’s statement weight, then we would also have to consider giving weight to evidence of other times; for instance, there are certainly orthodontic devices, such as conventional braces, that require significantly more than 20 minutes of application. Ex. 1001, 1:41–43 (the ’184 patent explains that “this widely accepted approach takes about twenty four months on average to achieve success”). give that argument enhanced probative value. Accordingly, we give the cited evidence on this point in Dr. Ricupito’s declaration little, if any, probative weight.” slip op. at 22

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “R. Evid. 702.7 Mot. Exclude, 1. We disagree. Dr. Ricupito’s declaration may have some deficiencies, which we discuss in the following sections of this Decision in our substantive discussion of the evidence. The Board, however, acts as both the gatekeeper of evidence and as the weigher of evidence. Rather than excluding evidence that is allegedly confusing, misleading, untimely, and/or irrelevant, we will simply not rely on it or give it little or no probative weight, as appropriate, in our analysis. Similar to a district court in a bench trial, the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented, including giving it no weight. See, e.g., Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received . . . .”). Thus, in this inter partes review, the better course is to have a complete record of the evidence to facilitate public access as well as appellate review. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 2010.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 9,662,184 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,662,184
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01376 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 15 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Grill and Aoyama; the Board found a reason to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Construction of “using the [designated layer] as a mask” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the phrase “using the [designated layer] as a mask”6 as “using the [designated layer] to 6 Claim 13 recites several steps of etching “using” various layers—for example, the first resist pattern [step f]/second resist pattern and the mask pattern [step h]/patterned third insulating film [step i]—“as a mask.” As shorthand, we refer to the various layers as “the designated layer.” define areas for etching.”7 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 16

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

    “that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” encompasses a situation in which the modified mask pattern 358, having “edges that are in line and flush with” second resist pattern 359, is therefore used as a mask. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “us[ed] . . . as a mask” necessarily encompasses such a situation. See supra Section II.C.2. We note that the application of our construction would not preclude layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (h) of claim 13. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39

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

    “2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 16 Because we find that claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,197,696
• Tech 21 UK Ltd. v. Zagg Intellectual Property Holding Co., Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2016 · IPR2014-01262 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable over Mason I and Thomas; claim 1 is also anticipated by PALM. The motion to amend is denied as to substitute claims 19–32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006).” slip op. at 9

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

    “interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1276–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim term “application element.” Pet. 18–20. Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any claim terms. PO Resp. 4. Based on our review of the record before us, however, no explicit construction of any claim term is needed.” slip op. at 10

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

    “protective film sheets have a dry adhesive instead of a wet adhesive covered by a peel-away film. Pet. 28, 45–47. Petitioner cites to Thomas’s shield assembly to teach that use of protective overlay sheets having a wet adhesive covered by a removable backing was known. Id. at 29. Petitioner argues that substituting Thomas’s shield assembly with wet adhesive for Mason I’s film sheet with dry adhesive would have been obvious because it avoids the necessity and mess of using a liquid to activate the dry adhesive. Id. at 27. Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable over a combination of Mason I and Thomas. As discussed above, Mason I discloses a package that includes: a screen protector, which has an adhesive layer; a peel-away cover film; a cloth; an application card; and a liquid cleaning solution. As also discussed above, Thomas discloses a similar protective transparent overlay sheet that is secured to a display screen by a wet-adhesive, after a removable backing sheet is peeled away. We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the wet-adhesive with removable backing sheet disclosed in Thomas with the screen protector of Mason I to avoid the necessity and mess of using a liquid to activate a dry adhesive.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “The determination of whether a given reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,567,596 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,567,596
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01158 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Nathan ’259 and Nathan ’255, and over Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa; the Keller and Martin ground was not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The Federal Circuit recently addressed written description support for negative limitations, and what constitutes a “reason to exclude,” in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, the court asked whether “describing alternative features—without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature—can constitute a ‘reason to exclude’ under the standard articulated in Santarus.” Id. at 1355. Rejecting the appellant’s argument that a specification must state the advantage of excluding a particular feature, the court held that “Santarus simply reflects the fact that the specification need only satisfy the requirements of § 112, paragraph 1 as described in this court’s existing jurisprudence.” Id. at 1356. The “reason to exclude,” therefore, may be provided by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention. Id. The court proceeded to analyze whether there was sufficient evidence that the patentee possessed the negative claim limitation as of the filing date. Id. at 1357. In view of Inphi, we reject HTC’s argument that claims 1–15 are not entitled to an earlier priority date because AAD allegedly “fails to identify any teaching in the specification of any of its applications . . . that excludes a connection to a ‘network service center containing the names,’ fails to identify any disadvantages of such a network service center, and fails to otherwise provide a reason to exclude a network service center.” Pet. Reply 12 5 (emphasis added). We need not find a recitation in the originally-filed specification of any disadvantage of a network service center; rather, the proper inquiry is whether the priority application reasonably conveys that the inventor was in possession of an apparatus that could—without connecting to a network service center—display a list of names of sound tracks. We conclude that it does. As AAD points out, the device disclosed in the priority applications includes a number of inputs, but as Mr. McAlexander testifies, none of these inputs could be used to connect to a network service center. PO Resp. 12; Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. Furthermore, the applications disclose displaying a list of names of sound tracks, which are entered into the memory of the device by the user (as opposed to being obtained from a network service center). PO Resp. 12–13. Mr. McAlexander testifies that the specifications reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the described apparatus could display a list of names of sound tracks without being connected to a network service center. Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. After evaluating the specifications and the expert testimony, we agree. We, therefore, conclude that HTC has not met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–15 of the ’888 patent are not entitled to a priority date before the effective date of Keller. As such, HTC has not established that Keller is prior art to the ’888 patent, and has not proven that claims 1–15 are unpatentable as having been obvious over Keller and Martin.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The Federal Circuit recently addressed written description support for negative limitations, and what constitutes a “reason to exclude,” in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, the court asked whether “describing alternative features—without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature—can constitute a ‘reason to exclude’ under the standard articulated in Santarus.” Id. at 1355. Rejecting the appellant’s argument that a specification must state the advantage of excluding a particular feature, the court held that “Santarus simply reflects the fact that the specification need only satisfy the requirements of § 112, paragraph 1 as described in this court’s existing jurisprudence.” Id. at 1356. The “reason to exclude,” therefore, may be provided by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention. Id. The court proceeded to analyze whether there was sufficient evidence that the patentee possessed the negative claim limitation as of the filing date. Id. at 1357. In view of Inphi, we reject HTC’s argument that claims 1–15 are not entitled to an earlier priority date because AAD allegedly “fails to identify any teaching in the specification of any of its applications . . . that excludes a connection to a ‘network service center containing the names,’ fails to identify any disadvantages of such a network service center, and fails to otherwise provide a reason to exclude a network service center.” Pet. Reply 12 5 (emphasis added). We need not find a recitation in the originally-filed specification of any disadvantage of a network service center; rather, the proper inquiry is whether the priority application reasonably conveys that the inventor was in possession of an apparatus that could—without connecting to a network service center—display a list of names of sound tracks. We conclude that it does. As AAD points out, the device disclosed in the priority applications includes a number of inputs, but as Mr. McAlexander testifies, none of these inputs could be used to connect to a network service center. PO Resp. 12; Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. Furthermore, the applications disclose displaying a list of names of sound tracks, which are entered into the memory of the device by the user (as opposed to being obtained from a network service center). PO Resp. 12–13. Mr. McAlexander testifies that the specifications reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the described apparatus could display a list of names of sound tracks without being connected to a network service center. Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. After evaluating the specifications and the expert testimony, we agree. We, therefore, conclude that HTC has not met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–15 of the ’888 patent are not entitled to a priority date before the effective date of Keller. As such, HTC has not established that Keller is prior art to the ’888 patent, and has not proven that claims 1–15 are unpatentable as having been obvious over Keller and Martin.” slip op. at 12

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

    “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 181 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 183 (“it would be 34 obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that it would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. slip op. at 34

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “In cases in which the proffered evidence of commercial success is licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a 23 danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record”; otherwise the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’888 patent. Pet. Reply 24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’888 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’888 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’888 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’888 patent, or whether they were taken merely to 24 avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. We conclude that the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness over the combined Nathan references.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,400,888 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,400,888

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.