- Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,333,007 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2023 · IPR2022-01335 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19, 20, and 37–52 based on the §103 combination of Hardin and Salmre, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the Petition, the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge of at least one claim of the ’447 patent as unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review of all Challenged Claims of the ’447 patent on the ground stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“(1) Petitioner asserts that substantially the same two claim limitations lack written description support in the ’094 application and U.S. Patent Application No. 13/856,392 (“the ’392 application”) (compare Pet. 23–29, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 (petition) at 23–28); (2) Petitioner asserts that because these limitations lack written description support in the ’094 and ’392 applications, the Challenged Claims are not entitled to the priority date of either of these applications and, therefore, Hardin ’665 (the pre-issuance publication of the ’094 application) is available as prior art to the Challenged Claims (compare Pet. 1, 2, 28–29, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 1, 2, 28–29);” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“(3) Petitioner asserts that the same combination of references— Hardin ’665 and Salmre—would have rendered the subject matter of the claims challenged in each petition obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (compare Pet. 29–64, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 29–66); (4) Petitioner asserts the same reasons with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success (compare Pet. 65–71, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 66–71);” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (compare Prelim. Resp. 61–66, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 9 at 61–66);” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,984,447 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01327 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–9, 29, and 30 on the § 103 ground over Hardin ’665 and Salmre.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s uncontested argument and evidence regarding the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre, and we find, for the reasons provided by Petitioner and on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combined teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre satisfy the elements of the claims, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Analogous artInstituted
“Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify Petitioner sets forth a detailed analysis showing how the combined teachings of the references meet the elements of claims 1–9, 29, and 30. Pet. 28–63. In particular, Petitioner relies on Hardin ’665 as teaching most of the elements of the claims, but relies, on Salmre to meet the claim elements reciting application programs on mobile devices that can reserve geographic areas and a content delivery platform that can be implemented on the same mobile device as the application program. Id. at 29. Additionally, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 63–69.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify Petitioner sets forth a detailed analysis showing how the combined teachings of the references meet the elements of claims 1–9, 29, and 30. Pet. 28–63. In particular, Petitioner relies on Hardin ’665 as teaching most of the elements of the claims, but relies, on Salmre to meet the claim elements reciting application programs on mobile devices that can reserve geographic areas and a content delivery platform that can be implemented on the same mobile device as the application program. Id. at 29. Additionally, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 63–69.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“Objective Considerations of Nonobviousness Neither party presents evidence of objective considerations of nonobviousness at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,049,387 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Donghee America, Inc. / Donghee Alabama, LLC v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation And ResearchAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-01605 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, 11, 12, and 14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 12, and 14 are anticipated by Linden, and claims 7 and 11 are obvious over Linden and Hata.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–67; Ex. 1007 ¶ 15). Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 15. The ’253 patent states that “[t]he term ‘hollow body’ is understood to mean any article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–67. Where an inventor defines specific terms used to describe an invention, we will give effect to those definitions, as long as they are set out “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the phrase “is understood to mean,” as used in the ’253 patent, signals that the inventor presents a clear, deliberate, and precise definition. Accordingly, we interpret “hollow body” as having the definition given it in the ’253 patent, “any article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“supporting its proposed construction of “incorporate” as “insert.” First, Petitioner argues that the language of the ’253 patent requires a construction of “incorporating” as encompassing “inserting” rather than as limited to “attaching.” Reply 2–4. Both parties argue that the “incorporating” recited in the challenged claims must occur before the mold closes to form the hollow body. PO Resp. 16; Reply 2–3. We agree. Ex. 1001, 6:2–14 (“. . . after said step of incorporating, closing said mould . . .”). Thus, it is important to note the processes that the ’253 patent describes as occurring before, during, and after mold closure. Because “incorporating” must occur before mold closure, the process of “incorporating” may not be limited to any process that the patent describes as occurring during or after mold closure. Petitioner is correct that the ’253 patent describes a process in which a preassembled structure for supporting an accessory “may . . . be fastened by welding to the wall of the hollow body, upon closing the mould,” i.e., during, not before, mold closure. Ex. 1001, 4:23–30. Thus, the language of the ’253 patent does not support construing the term “incorporating” as limited to “attaching.” Petitioner also argues that both parties agreed in the related infringement suit in District Court that the proper construction of “incorporating” under the Phillips standard, used in that forum, was “inserting.” Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4). Specifically, in that litigation, Patent Owner agreed that the correct construction of “incorporating at least one of an accessory or a duct within the hollow body” was “inserting an accessory or duct into the hollow body.” Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4. Here, we apply the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016). “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction of a term under the Phillips standard. But it cannot be narrower.” Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 F. App’x 864, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential). Here, for the term “incorporating,” Patent Owner’s proposed broadest reasonable interpretation (“attaching”) is narrower than the Phillips construction Patent Owner has advanced (“inserting”). Thus, “attaching” cannot be the broadest reasonable interpretation of “incorporating.” Other than Patent Owner’s proposed “attaching” construction, the only construction the parties have proposed either in this case or in the related District Court case is Petitioner’s proposed “inserting” construction. PO Resp. 15–20 (discussing only “inserting” and “attaching” constructions); Reply 2–9 (Petitioner arguing in favor of “inserting”); Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4 (both parties proposing “inserting”). The ’253 patent supports such a construction, because it describes at least some of its embodiments as involving only insertion of an object between the sheets that will form the hollow body before mold closure. Ex. 1001, 4:23–30. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “incorporating” as “inserting.”” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Finally, Patent Owner directs us to the testimony of Professor Tim Osswald as support for its view that “incorporate” should mean “attach.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–42). In relevant part, this testimony states that, “[a]fter reading the specification of the ’253 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and interpret the word ‘incorporating’ to mean ‘fastening’ or ‘attaching’ so that the accessory or duct becomes part of the hollow body.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 42. Professor Osswald does not cite any evidence in support of his testimony. “[C]onclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Accordingly, we give little weight to Professor Osswald’s statement regarding the proper construction of “incorporate.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he [PTAB] is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations . . . .” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“preform which has at least one opening for that purpose, to be applied to the inside surface of the wall of the expanded hollow body.” Id. at 3:62–4:3. Patent Owner argues that this teaching is insufficient to disclose attaching the surge cup to the wall of the hollow body before the mold closes. PO Resp. 23–24. We agree that Linden does not teach attaching its accessory to the inside wall of the fuel tank before the mold closes around the preform. Instead, in Linden, the mold halves are closed around the preform and the mandrel, and “a suitable blowing agent . . . is introduced under pressure” through the mandrel, causing the preform to expand to press “against the inside wall defining the mold cavity,” and only then is the holding means for the accessory displaced to be brought into contact with the inner wall of the expanded preform, welding the holding means to the wall. Ex. 1003, 7:27–55, 8:11–29, Figs. 1–3. But, as discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner about the proper construction of “incorporating” in the challenged claims. Claim 1 requires only that an accessory or a duct be “incorporat[ed] . . . within the hollow body” before mold closure occurs, and we construe “incorporating” to mean “inserting,” without requiring “attaching.” Thus, it is unimportant that Linden fails to teach attaching the surge cup to the wall before mold closure. All that is required is that Linden disclose inserting the surge cup into the preform before mold closure, and Linden does disclose this. Id. at 3:62–4:3, 7:27–49, Figs. 1–3. The next question is whether Linden discloses “after said step of incorporating, closing [the mold] in a way which eliminates any interface between said at least one of said accessory or said duct and an external atmosphere outside of the hollow body.” As discussed above, Linden discloses closing the mold halves after placing the additional body within the preform. But Linden discloses that “[a]t its lower end the preform 28 is pressed around the mandrel 14 by virtue of closure of the mold halves 10a and 10b.” Id. at 7:40–42, Fig. 2. Because mandrel 14 is hollow, id. at 6:35–39; 6:46–54, it is not completely clear that closure of Linden’s hollow body around mandrel 14 necessarily eliminates any interface between the additional body inside Linden’s hollow body and the atmosphere outside the hollow body. On the other hand, the closure of the mold described in the ’253 patent occurs with blowing nozzle 6 “positioned between the two parts of the [mold],” and “blowing air is injected under pressure via the nozzle,” which is quite similar to the use of hollow mandrel 14 in Linden. Ex. 1001, 5:50–57. Given the similarity between Linden’s method and the method described in the ’253 patent, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Linden discloses the limitation of claim 1 requiring the step of, “after said step of incorporating, closing [the mold] in a way which eliminates any interface between said at least one of said accessory or said duct and an external atmosphere outside of the hollow body.” The final question with respect to claim 1 is whether Linden discloses that the additional body incorporated within the hollow body “is supported by a preassembled structure which comprises at least one device configured to anchor said preassembled structure to an internal wall of the hollow body.” Petitioner argues that Linden’s “[h]olding means 24 is a preassembled structure” in which “leg members 44, 45” have “enlarged foot portion[s] 36.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003, 9:23–34). We agree. “[H]olding means 24 . . . substantially comprises first and second support or leg members 44, 45,” and “support or leg members 44, 45 are each provided with an enlarged foot portion 36 of substantially plate-like configuration.” Ex. 1003, 9:23–34. Even if Linden’s holding means 24 were not in the aggregate the recited “preassembled structure,” each leg member 44, 45, taken together with its respective foot portion 36 is. Ex. 1001, 4:26–28 (describing a “preassembled structure” as “for example, an arm provided with a tab for fastening to the wall of the hollow body”). Linden’s “foot portions 36 are pressed against the inside surface, which is still hot and thus plastic, . . . of the hollow body . . . thereby to produce a welded joint between the foot portions 36 and the inside surface.” Id. at 9:34–42. Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Linden discloses the limitation of claim 1 requiring that the accessory or duct be “supported by a preassembled structure which comprises at least one device configured to anchor said preassembled structure to an internal wall of the hollow body.”” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,166,253 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,166,253 - Texas Association Of Realtors v. Uber Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00615 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable under § 103(a); the contingent motion to amend is denied because substitute claims are obvious and lack written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“II. ANALYSIS Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish the facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Michael Goodchild, Ph.D. (Ex. 1010) and the Reply Declaration of Dr. Goodchild (Ex. 1020). Patent Owner does not rely on any supporting declaration or cross-examination testimony. Below, we discuss whether Petitioner has met its burden with respect to claims 1–28. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (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,2 i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“First, Petitioner argues that based on the dictionary definition of “demarcate,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of “demarcating” is “‘to determine or mark off the boundaries or limits of’ something.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1013, RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY, (2d ed. 2001), 5); Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 35, 36. Next, Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “delimiting” is “determining or marking off the boundaries or limits of something, such as by providing a perimeter line or highlighting.” Pet. 7; Ex. 1013, 4; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 37–39. Petitioner reasons that the Specification provides examples of delimiting “via a perimeter line in any graphical way” and by highlighting. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:34–39, 8:13–19). Patent Owner does not address these interpretations in its Response, but at oral hearing Patent Owner agrees that Petitioner’s interpretations were “a fair assessment.” Tr. 92:19–94:3. Patent Owner also responds that there was no substantive difference between the two terms – “demarcating” and “delimiting.” Id. at 93:19–29. Petitioner’s proposed interpretations for “demarcating” and “delimiting” are consistent with the claim language, written description of the ’045 patent, and the plain meaning of each term. We therefore interpret “demarcating” to mean “determining or marking off the boundaries or limits of something,” and interpret “delimiting” to mean “determining or marking off the boundaries or limits of something, such as by providing a perimeter line or highlighting.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties do not argue in the Petition or Patent Owner Response that we should adopt a specific formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Goodchild, however, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’045 patent “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree (or its equivalent), and three years’ experience in the development, management, and use of geographic information systems and related geospatial technologies.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 14. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’045 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’045 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Dr. Goodchild’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore adopt it for purposes of this Decision. As noted, we have also considered the cited references as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner also provides a persuasive rationale for combining the teachings of O’Clair and Tadman. Id. at 9–10, 14–15. Specifically, Petitioner contends both references are in “similar fields,” with both references referring to the mapping application Google Maps, and [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and desirable at the time of the ’045 Patent’s filing to combine the features of Tadman into O’Clair to achieve, for example, the ability for a “user to conduct a joint query by using both spatial and non-spatial searches” and the other “advanced features” described by Tadman. Id. at 9–10 (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 50–51). As further explained by Dr. Goodchild, “[t]he combination of O’Clair’s systems and methods with Tadman’s teachings of polygon-based search would yield the predictable and desirable result of a GIS [geographic information] system which allowed a user to obtain search results located with a polygon-shaped area of interest.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 52; see also Tr. 17:17–19:19. In its Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s rationale for combining features of Tadman and O’Clair, nor does Patent Owner challenge Petitioner’s rationale for combining any of the prior art. See Tr. 38:21–39:33 (counsel for Patent Owner agreeing lack of motivation to combine is not argued in the Patent Owner Response). We find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 8,510,045 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,510,045 - Motionpoint Corporation v. Transperfect Global, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00060 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable for lack of adequate written description under § 112, first paragraph.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“that “hyperlink” is a well-understood term that the ’022 patent uses in accordance with its ordinary meaning. As explained above, the Microsoft Computer User’s Dictionary makes clear that a hyperlink includes a connection to another element or document. Patent Owner points to no persuasive evidence that the ’022 patent describes a hyperlink as separate from this connection such that the connection can be changed with the hyperlink remaining the same. Indeed, the ’022 patent describes “replac[ing] all links in the translated web page 7 with links that point to the translation manager 4” as part of the translation process. Ex. 1001, 3:37–38. Thus, as described in the patent, changing the connection to point to the translation manager requires a new link. This is consistent with the ordinary meaning of a hyperlink as including a specific connection from one document to another element or document. Our preliminary construction of “hyperlink” included “a link or connection” but did not include a recitation of the element or document linked. To resolve the parties’ dispute, consistent with the ordinary meaning and the specification, we conclude, on the full record before us, that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood “hyperlink” to mean “a connection between an element in a hypertext document, such as a word, phrase, symbol, or image, and a different element in the document, another hypertext document, a file, or a script.”” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“First, the inter partes reexamination of the ’022 patent is relevant to our consideration of the claim construction issues presented here because claim construction was at issue in the reexamination. Second, we see no risk of undue prejudice that would outweigh the probative value of the documents and evidence submitted in the reexamination. Of note, is that this proceeding is not a jury trial and, thus, the risk of prejudice in this forum is less than what may otherwise exist before a jury. Third, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibit 1013 is not hearsay at least under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) because the testimony in Dr. Nakhimovsky’s Declaration was submitted by, and on behalf of, Patent Owner to the Patent Office, thus evidencing that Patent Owner manifested a belief that the statements contained therein were true. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as applied to Exhibit 1013 is denied.” slip op. at 22
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s first argument is contrary to our constructions of the term “hyperlink” and the phrase “said hyperlink.” As reflected in our construction, “said hyperlink” in each of independent claims 1, 17, and 26, refers back to the original recitation of “one or more hyperlinks” in the original (untranslated) electronic communication. The portion of the specification relied upon by Patent Owner does not disclose providing translation of said further electronic communications when the original one or more hyperlink is activated. Rather, this disclosure indicates that the translation manager may replace all of the links (i.e., hyperlinks) in the translated web page with links that point to the translation manager. These replaced links are in the translated electronic communication (e.g., web page 7), and not in the original untranslated electronic communication (e.g., web page 2). Thus, this disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of a translation manager that provides translation of further electronic communications when the one or more hyperlinks in the original untranslated electronic communication is activated (i.e., one or more hyperlinks with unmodified destination addresses). See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 25
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not reached
“E. Indefiniteness of Claims 23 and 25–28 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph Our determination that each challenged claim is unpatentable for lack of an adequate written description renders it unnecessary to reach Petitioner’s contentions that claims 23 and 25–28 of the ’022 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 6,857,022 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,857,022
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.