• Dr. Squatch, LLC v. The Procter & Gamble CompanyAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01174 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 10–23 are unpatentable: the Board found claims 1–15 anticipated or obvious over the asserted grounds and claims 16–23 obvious over the Native combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “argument that the prior art fails to enable a stable deodorant stick. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak sufficiently teaches compositions with the relevant ingredients and achieves stable compositions through the use of a second wax having a melting point of 73 to 90° C. Reply 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:39–54). For example, Lesniak’s compositions (nos. 8 and 11) that used such a second wax, namely CastorWax MP80, are disclosed as sufficiently stable. Ex. 1003, Table 2. Here, we further credit the testimony of Dr. Michniak-Kohn that Lesniak teaches how to make stable compositions by including a secondary wax, such as castor wax, with a sufficiently high melting point. Ex. 1003, 1:39-54, 5:23-32, Table 2. Both of the compositions (nos. 8 and 11) tested by Lesniak that had such a wax passed the stability tests. Id. Ex. 1086 ¶ 7; see also Reply 6 (“Lesniak overcame any stability issues, as it expressly discloses compositions that are ‘physically stable at high and low temperatures.’”) (citing Ex. 1003, 5:23–32).” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree; and (2) at least two years of experience in cosmetics formulations.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications at this stage of the proceeding. PO Resp. 10. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal above, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that the preamble of independent claim 1, 16, and 20 reciting “a deodorant stick” is limiting” as it provides antecedent basis for the recitation of “said deodorant stick being free of an aluminum salt” for each independent claim. PO Resp. 7–10. Patent Owner also points to dependent claims 6–9 as relying on the preamble reciting “a deodorant stick” as antecedent basis for claim elements. Id. at 9. We agree. Petitioner does not provide argument to the contrary. See, e.g., Pet. 19 (arguing that Lesniak discloses a deodorant stick in the form of an antiperspirant stick). We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We find that the evidence of record fails to support Patent Owner’s argument that the prior art fails to enable a stable deodorant stick. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak sufficiently teaches compositions with the relevant ingredients and achieves stable compositions through the use of a second wax having a melting point of 73 to 90° C. Reply 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:39–54). For example, Lesniak’s compositions (nos. 8 and 11) that used such a second wax, namely CastorWax MP80, are disclosed as sufficiently stable. Ex. 1003, Table 2. Here, we further credit the testimony of Dr. Michniak-Kohn that Lesniak teaches how to make stable compositions by including a secondary wax, such as castor wax, with a sufficiently high melting point. Ex. 1003, 1:39-54, 5:23-32, Table 2. Both of the compositions (nos. 8 and 11) tested by Lesniak that had such a wax passed the stability tests. Id. Ex. 1086 ¶ 7; see also Reply 6 (“Lesniak overcame any stability issues, as it expressly discloses compositions that are ‘physically stable at high and low temperatures.’”) (citing Ex. 1003, 5:23–32). Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that Lesniak provides sufficient disclosure to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate deodorant stick within the parameters of claim 1. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of evidence that Lesniak anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,497,706 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,497,706
• Billerud Aktiebolag (Publ) v. Westrock MWV, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2025 · IPR2023-01206 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 25–26 are allowed, while 24 and 27 are denied for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are also not admissible as expert testimony because Mr. Wirén is not “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 703. “To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Mr. Wirén does not meet our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Section II.B, supra. That definition is based on the undisputed testimony of Messrs. Zotterman and Klass. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. Although Mr. Wirén has a Master’s of Science in chemical engineering, he lacks any experience or specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 2011, 12:1–10, 19:6–25, 20:2–7. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are the testimony of Mr. Wirén and should be excluded from evidence because Mr. Wirén is not a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. PO MTE 5–6, 9; Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Unless a patent lawyer is also a qualified technical” slip op. at 61

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based on the testimony of the parties’ witnesses, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related degree, with three to five years of experience in paperboard manufacturing, or a master’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, or mechanical engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’142 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “A claim construction that excludes a particular element is viewed as a “negative limitation.” Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847 Fed. App’x 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). “[S]uch exclusions must find support either in ‘the words of the claim’ or through an ‘express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.’” Id. (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an intent to define the term.’” Id. (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Similarly, disclaimer or disavowal requires that the specification or prosecution history demonstrate that the invention does not include a particular feature. Id. Here, we find no claim language, lexicography, or disclaimer in the ’142 Patent or its file history that would support defining a “hot-hard calender” as requiring that only one of the two rollers be heated to an elevated temperature.” slip op. at 12

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

    “a contact surface of said thermo-roller is heated to an elevated temperature of at least 250°F.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the temperature limitation is taught by the combination of Fugitt and Papermaking. Pet. 32–34. Fugitt discloses that “[t]he rolls of the calender may be steam heated.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 26. In a section titled “Heated Rolls,” Papermaking discloses that “Steam can be used up to 170°C [338°F] surface temperature.” Ex. 1010, 95, 98. Petitioner is thus correct that, “[w]hile Fugitt teaches that a hot calender may be steam heated, Papermaking clarifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that steam heated thermo-rollers may reach up to 338°F.” Pet. 36. Based on these disclosures, we are persuaded by Mr. Zotterman’s testimony that it would have been “obvious to heat the thermo-roller of Fugitt to at least 250°F.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 159. combine Fugitt and Papermaking because of Papermaking’s status as a “trusted handbook[],” because both references disclose a method of manufacturing a paperboard structure with hot calendering,” and “because of the known advantages of heated rollers.” Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157, 159, 162. Petitioner’s contention is supported by Papermaking’s disclosures that, for cartonboard, “[p]recalendering is used before the coater to reduce roughness and porosity” and “[h]igh thermo roll temperatures (in some cases over 200°C) result in bulk savings because of the temperature gradient.” Ex. 1005, 80–82; see also Pet. 38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 164 (citing these disclosures). Papermaking’s disclosed range of “up to 170°C [338°F]” for steam- heated rolls (Ex. 1010, 98), overlaps the claimed range of “at least 250°F.” Patent Owner agrees. Tr. 27:11–13. “If the relevant comparison between a disputed claim limitation and the prior art pertains to a range of overlapping values, ‘. . . even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 946 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “[S]uch an overlap creates a presumption of obviousness, and . . . the burden of production falls upon the patentee to come forward with pertinent evidence that the overlapping range would not have been obvious in light of the prior art.” Id. (citing E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,293,142 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,293,142
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00025 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–20 were more likely than not unpatentable over either obviousness ground, for lack of utility, or as indefinite.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’033 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–22, 44–45). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’033 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level”” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner does not offer a specific construction for any claim terms. Pet. 19–20. Rather, Petitioner contends that “the outer boundary of the Challenged Claims lacks reasonable certainty,” and, therefore, “the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b).” Pet. 20. Petitioner further contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious “regardless of the outer boundary of the claims.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s arguments regarding indefiniteness, and does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. As explained in detail below, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, and determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner focuses its obviousness challenge on 1PNZQ23’s phenotype, and does not address its genotype. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 26–32 (comparing 1PNZQ23’s phenotype with the phenotypes of the asserted prior art). Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any information in the Petition or Reply regarding 1PNZQ23’s genotype that supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding obviousness. Furthermore, Patent Owner offers information suggesting that “the breeding of 1PNZQ23 was unpredictable even with both parents being known in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Schnable addresses unpredictability in the breeding process, stating: distinct even when the F1 plant itself results from a cross of two inbreds. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not expect that a cross of the same parents will produce F2 or D1 progeny identical to 1PNZQ23. . . . [T]he genome of a progeny plant is the result of genetic segregation and recombination in the F1 plant of the two parental genomes and the chance of the exact same child resulting from that initial biparental cross is infinitesimally small. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123. This information undermines Petitioner’s arguments regarding an expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,707,033
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · PGR2024-00023 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because the petition did not show they were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness, utility, written-description, or enablement ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’545 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist as along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’545 patent, and we adopt it for purposes” slip op. at 6

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

    “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2019). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 7

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

    “additional reasons. For example, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at PH4CYJ based on Smalley’s disclosure alone. Prelim. Resp. 51–52. According to the ’545 patent specification, the claimed PH4CYJ inbred maize variety is a cross between inbred line PH1VNA and inbred line PH1KTF. Ex. 1001, 37:62–64. In the simplest terms, PH1VNA and PH1KTF are the parents, and their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety PH4CYJ. The ’545 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,696,545
• Voltage, LLC v. Shoals Technologies Group, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2024 · PGR2024-00022 · APJ Michael G Mcmanus · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–24 because Voltage did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). A post-grant review may not be instituted “unless. . . the information presented in the petition . . . if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response (including its supporting testimonial evidence), we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the ’153 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Accordingly, we decline to institute a post-grant review of claims 1–24 based on the grounds articulated in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art 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). Further, for purposes of this institution decision, and on the present record, we determine that the adoption of either party’s proposal regarding requisite work experience would not change our analysis or conclusions. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 12

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

    “The parties put forward several terms for construction. Pet. 14–17; Prelim. Resp. 9–12. With respect to Grounds I through VII, we have determined that no claim constructions are required in order to address the points at issue. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (internal citation omitted)). Claim construction is required to resolve certain issues arising in connection with Ground VIII. Accordingly, we construe certain terms in our discussion of that ground, infra.” slip op. at 13

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

    “through the undermold.” The term “aperture only partially extending through said undermold” was added to the claims of the ’254 parent application by amendment. Ex. 1021, 103–105; Ex. 1020, 6:60–8:47. With this amendment, the claims of the ’254 patent align with Figure 7, reproduced below. Figure 7 of the ’254 Patent (Figure 7 of the ’153 patent is identical to Figure 7 of the ’254 patent except for minor stylistic changes). As can be seen, the aperture occupied by drop line 12 extends partially through the undermold to compression lug 20 while the aperture occupied by feeder cable 14 extends completely through the undermold. This suggests a construction of “aperture extending partially through the undermold” where such aperture does not extend completely through the undermold. Such a construction of “aperture extending partially through the undermold” is consistent with the plain meaning of “extending partially.”” slip op. at 62

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,689,153
• The Noco Company, Inc. v. Pilot, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2022-01417 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 5–12 and 13, 14, 17–19, 22–24, 27 are anticipated; the remaining claims are obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had “a Bachelor’s Degree in a relevant engineering discipline such as electrical engineering and at least two years of relevant experience in the design and/or development of automotive electrical systems, or a Masters or more advanced degree in a relevant engineering discipline such as electrical engineering.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition or offer its own. In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’236 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’236 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner argues that “[a]ll of the claim terms are given their plain meaning, as understood by the [person of ordinary skill in the art], unless indicated otherwise.” Pet. 9. After considering the arguments and information Petitioner presents, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “with Petitioner that the ’236 patent is not entitled to the 2014 priority date of the original application, or any date earlier than April 21, 2021, which is the filing date of the ’236 patent. Whether the Specification complies with the written description requirement calls for a comparison of the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether the inventor has demonstrated possession of the claimed invention. See Ariad, 598 F.3d 1336 at 1353; Power Oasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The independent claims of the ’236 patent each require (1) a load detection sensor “configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery” and (2) a reverse polarity sensor “configured to detect polarity of a vehicle battery.” Ex. 1001, 5:16–27 (claim 1), 6:7–22 (claim 13), 6:65–7:13 (claim 18), 8:1– 15 (claim 23). The Specification of the ’236 patent does not expressly disclose both a load detection sensor and reverse polarity sensor configured to perform the recited functions. Instead, the Specification identifies a single circuit, the “automatic detection module,” that “can automatically detect[] whether the load is detected” and “whether the electrode is connected with the automobile storage battery reversely.” Ex. 1001, 2:51–54. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the disclosure of a single circuit capable of performing two functions does not demonstrate the inventors had possession of an invention that requires two separate sensors configured to perform separate functions as recited in the claims. See Ariad, 598 F.3d 1336 at 1352 (“[A] description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement.”); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that “the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue,” but that “one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims”); cf. PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding a claim for a method involving sequential application of two chemicals was invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that the invention was a method of applying a “composition” containing the two chemicals). For all of the foregoing reasons, we agree with Petitioner that the Specification of the ’236 patent does not provide adequate written description support for distinct “load detection” and “reverse polarity” sensors, and, therefore, the challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than April 21, 2021, the filing date of the ʼ236 patent.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “demonstrating that Nook-015 discloses the limitations in claim 1. After reviewing the undisputed evidence and arguments Petitioner presents in the Petition regarding claim 1, we agree, for the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Wood’s testimony, that Nook-015 discloses an internal power supply, output port, load detection sensor, reverse polarity sensor, power switch, and microcontroller, all connected and configured as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1004, 3:17–26, 3:67–4:2, 4:20–38, 5:35–37, 5:50–54, 8:4–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Pet. 25–29. b. Claims 2 and 5–12 Claims 2 and 5–12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Petitioner directs us to portions of Nook-015 that disclose the additional limitations in these claims. Pet. 29–33. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s arguments or evidence regarding these dependent claims. For the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Wood’s testimony, we agree that Nook-015 discloses the limitations recited in these claims, as discussed below.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,104,236 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,104,236
• Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. / Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP v. Seagen Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9, and 10 are unpatentable for lack of written description, lack of enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by Ogitani.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. While there seems to be a slight difference in whether the ordinary artisan has ADC design experience obtained after a master’s degree or postdoctoral, neither party provides clear basis to explain how this will impact the analysis. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION We interpret claim terms using “the same claim construction standard” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “4. Analysis We note that “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written” slip op. at 23

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

    “4. Analysis The facts here are consistent with the situation in Amgen, which” slip op. at 76

  Patent outcomesUS 10,808,039 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,808,039
• Eden Park Illumination, Inc. / Larson Electronics LLC et al. v. S. Edward NeisterAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2023 · IPR2022-00381 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–18 are unpatentable as obvious; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied because proposed claims 19–25 lack written description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “1. Principles of Law In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to show unpatentability, which never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379– 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “However, when a patent owner attempts to antedate an asserted prior art reference, the patent owner takes on a temporary burden of production.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L., 68 F.4th 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378– 79)). “Once that burden is met, the burden shifts back to the petitioner.” Id. “[A] patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date because the patentee claims priority. . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120,” including a written description in the earlier-filed application that satisfies § 112. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted)); see also Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 870–71 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure,” and “the test [for satisfaction of the written description requirement] requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description “must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed,’” and “reasonably” convey to those skilled in the art “that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. (alteration in original). Stated another way, “one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To provide sufficient written description support, “[a] ‘disclosure” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “3. Reason to Combine Petitioner contends it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine (1) Eckhardt’s method of disinfecting skin using any light source that emits light capable of sterilization or disinfection, with (2) Sosnin’s KrCl or XeBr light sources, which generate photons having a wavelength of 222 nm and 282 nm, respectively. Pet. 21– 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40, 81; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 31, 69; Ex. 1005, 1547). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Eckhardt and Sosnin for several reasons: (1) Eckhardt’s teaching of using any light source capable of sterilization or disinfection, and specifically “narrow spectrum light (e.g., a line spectrum)” would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate other well-known germicidal UV light sources like Sosnin’s, and both references teach that their light sources kill bacteria; (2) a person of ordinary skill would have implemented Eckhardt’s high-level disclosure of using UV- C light to disinfect skin with Sosnin’s 222 nm excimer lamp because Sosnin’s lamp’s wavelength is within the range of 220 to 310 nm suggested by Eckhardt; (3) the effectiveness and relative safety of directing UV-C light of 222 nm on bare skin for disinfection was already understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art, even though there was general caution against exposing skin to excessive UV radiation. Pet. 22–24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40, 81–92; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 31, 69, 70; Ex. 1005, 1545–47; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 28, 40; Ex. 1013 ¶ 8; Ex. 1015, 2:22–67; Ex. 1016, 2:23–26; Ex. 1017, 58).” slip op. at 25

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

    “with our analysis of the effective filing date of original claims 12–18 that Patent Owner does not meet its burden to demonstrate the inventor’s possession in the ’626 provisional of generating photons of at least two single line wavelengths. Having considered the additional disclosures of the ’626 provisional Patent Owner points to in its RMTA (see RMTA 9), we find that none of these disclosures describe using both 222 nm and 254 nm single line wavelengths. See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 8, 12, 27, claim 9; Ex. 2047, 6–9. For example, the recitation of “apparatus that consists of a NUV source, ESP, ozone generator, mercury lamps, and humidifier with controls as defined in claims 3–8 and any combination therein” in claim 9 of the ’626 provisional generally identifies various sources that may be used, but would not have indicated to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of generating single line wavelengths of 222 nm and 254 nm. Mr. Lawal’s testimony supports this finding. Ex. 1053 ¶¶ 1–12. Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner does not meet its burden to demonstrate written description support for generating photons of at least two single line wavelengths, in claims 19–25 of its RMTA.19 Because Patent Owner has not satisfied the statutory and regulatory prohibition against introducing new matter in the revised proposed substitute claims, we deny the RMTA as to claims 19–25. 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii). Accordingly, we need not reach the patentability challenges Petitioner raises with regard to claims 19–25.” slip op. at 77

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteOther

    “19 We also determine that claim 19 does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention sought to be patented, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), because “the microorganisms” in element [19B] lacks antecedent basis.” slip op. at 78

  Patent outcomesUS 9,700,642 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,700,642
• The Noco Company, Inc. v. Pilot, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01417 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–27 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Nook-015 anticipates claims 1, 2, and 5–12.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “proceeding, we agree with Petitioner that the ’236 patent is not entitled to the 2014 priority date of the original application. Whether the Specification complies with the written description requirement calls for a comparison of the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether the inventor has demonstrated possession of the claimed invention. See Ariad, 598 F.3d 1336 at 1353; Power Oasis, 522 F.3d 1299, 1306. The independent claims of the ’236 patent each require (1) a load detection sensor “configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery” and (2) a reverse polarity sensor “configured to detect polarity of a vehicle battery.” Ex. 1001, 5:16–27 (claim 1), 6:7–22 (claim 13), 6:65–7:13 (claim 18), 8:1– 15 (claim 23). The Specification of the ’236 patent does not expressly disclose both a load detection sensor and reverse polarity sensor configured to perform the recited functions. Instead, the Specification identifies a single circuit, the “automatic detection module,” that “can automatically detect[] whether the load is detected” and “whether the electrode is connected with the automobile storage battery reversely.” Ex. 1001, 2:51–54. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the disclosure of a single circuit capable of performing two functions does not demonstrate the inventors had possession of an invention that requires two separate sensors configured to perform separate functions as recited in the claims. See Ariad, 598 F.3d 1336 at 1352 (“[A] description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement.”); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that “the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue,” but that “one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims”); cf. PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding a claim for a method involving sequential application of two chemicals was invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that the invention was a method of applying a “composition” containing the two chemicals). For all of the foregoing reasons, based on the present record, we agree with Petitioner that the Specification of the ’236 patent does not provide adequate written description support for distinct “load detection” and “reverse polarity” sensors, and, therefore, the challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than April 21, 2021, the filing date of the ʼ236 patent.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1 US 9,007,015 B1, issued Apr. 14, 2015 (Ex. 1004). 2 US 9,245,888 B2, issued Jan. 26, 2016 (Ex. 1010). 3 US 10,60,024 B2, issued Mar. 31, 2020 (Ex. 1005). 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (to anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a single prior art reference must expressly or inherently disclose each claim limitation”). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.” (alterations in original) (quoting In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991))). Additionally, “[u]nder the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2002). slip op. at 6

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

    “C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,104,236
• Eden Park Illumination, Inc. / Larson Electronics LLC et al. v. S. Edward NeisterInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 15, 2022 · IPR2022-00381 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and 12–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther

    “Having reviewed the disclosures of the ’626 provisional application relied upon by Patent Owner, we do not agree that they would convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Mr. Niester had possession of using 222 or 282 nm wavelengths to disinfect human or animal skin. While they refer to human activity such as travel, surgery, and food preparation, the disclosures do not refer to disinfecting skin. Rather, they refer to sterilizing things in the presence of humans, such as surfaces and air, but not human or animal skin itself. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied its initial burden of production on the effective-filing-date issue by identifying the absence of specific supporting disclosure for claim 1 from the ’626 provisional application. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing burden framework in inter partes review). Based on this record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing that challenged claims 1–10 are not entitled to an effective filing date earlier than the filing date of the PCT application. The parties will have an opportunity to develop their positions on the issue of the effective filing date of claims 1–10 during trial.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Having considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties on the present record, we are persuaded Petitioner sufficiently shows that Eckhardt and Sosnin teach or suggest all of the limitations in claim 1, and sufficiently explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used Eckhardt’s teaching of narrow spectrum light in the range of 220 to 310 nm to disinfect skin, with Sosnin’s implementation of excimer lasers including 222 and 282 nm to kill bacteria, to arrive at the method of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Eckhardt teaches away from the use of UV light on skin because it is based on a mischaracterization of Eckhardt, which does not teach bandages as a way to provide cover from direct UV light, but rather, compensates for application of UV light through a bandage by controlling the UV light intensity. Indeed, Eckhardt’s embodiment that Petitioner relies upon is titled “UV- Transmissive Bandage” and explains how to choose bandage materials that transmit UV-C light. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69–72. We also disagree, on this record, with Patent Owner’s argument that Sosnin would dissuade a person of ordinary skill from using 222 or 282 nm wavelengths to disinfect skin . Although Patent Owner is correct that Sosnin refers to the need for additional testing before using its technology outside of a laboratory (Prelim. Resp. 31), Mr. Lawal directs us to evidence supporting his testimony that it was general knowledge in the art at the time of the invention that even though UV light poses safety risks to human skin, UV-C light of 222 nm on bare skin for disinfection was relatively safe. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–91 (citing Exs. 1013, 1015, 1016, 1017). Patent Owner presents only attorney argument in response to Mr. Lawal’s testimony and supporting evidence. We invite the parties to continue to develop this issue during trial.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Eckhardt teaches away from the use of UV light on skin because it is based on a mischaracterization of Eckhardt, which does not teach bandages as a way to provide cover from direct UV light, but rather, compensates for application of UV light through a bandage by controlling the UV light intensity. Indeed, Eckhardt’s embodiment that Petitioner relies upon is titled “UV- Transmissive Bandage” and explains how to choose bandage materials that transmit UV-C light. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69–72. We also disagree, on this record, with Patent Owner’s argument that Sosnin would dissuade a person of ordinary skill from using 222 or 282 nm wavelengths to disinfect skin . Although Patent Owner is correct that Sosnin refers to the need for additional testing before using its technology outside of a laboratory (Prelim. Resp. 31), Mr. Lawal directs us to evidence supporting his testimony that it was general knowledge in the art at the time of the invention that even though UV light poses safety risks to human skin, UV-C light of 222 nm on bare skin for disinfection was relatively safe. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–91 (citing Exs. 1013, 1015, 1016, 1017). Patent Owner presents only attorney argument in response to Mr. Lawal’s testimony and supporting evidence. We invite the parties to continue to develop this issue during trial.” slip op. at 17

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,700,642

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.