- PTAB · Apr 7, 2022 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing
Granted Petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted PGR on claims 1–5, 9, and 10 based on the more-likely-than-not enablement showing and efficiency considerations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“As acknowledged by both Petitioner and Patent Owner, this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve essentially identical issues. See 6 Reh’g Req. 15; Prelim. Resp. 19 n.3. In particular, we note that claims 6–8 of the ’039 patent challenged in PGR2021-00042 depend from claim 1 of the ’039 patent challenged in this proceeding, and are challenged under essentially identical written description, enablement and prior art issues. Reh’g Req. 15. Thus, our decision to institute post-grant review in PGR2021-00042 effectuates our review of issues almost identical to those in this proceeding. Petitioner further argues that this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve related issues, and that “considerations of efficiency . . . therefore counsel in favor of the Board reviewing the patentability of claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of the ’039 patent as well.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that, because we are to review practically the same issues of this proceeding in PGR2021-00042, considerations of efficiency (i.e., efficient use of the Board’s resources) strongly weigh in favor of also instituting trial in this proceeding. See Reh’g Req. 15. Considering all the factors together as a whole, we determine that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the interests of efficiency and integrity of the patent system weigh against exercising discretionary denial under § 324(a). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution. We consider the merits of the Petition with respect to the threshold for institution below.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“3. Analysis “[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) (alteration in original). “The enablement requirement ensures that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement. The scope of enablement, in turn, is that which is disclosed in the specification plus the scope of what would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.” National Recovery Techs. Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1195–96 (Fed Cir. 1999). [Although] a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art . . . , that general, oft-repeated statement is merely a rule 24 of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure. . . . [W]hen there is no disclosure of any specific starting material or of any of the conditions under which a process can be carried out, undue experimentation is required; there is a failure to meet the enablement requirement that cannot be rectified by asserting that all the disclosure related to the process is within the skill of the art. It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement. Genentech Inc., 108 F.3d at 1366. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of the ’039 patent lack enablement. In particular, we are persuaded based on the record at this stage of the proceeding that the Specification does not enable the full scope of the claims. The Specification focuses on dolastatin/auristatin derivatives and does not describe novel ADCs having non-dolastatin/auristatin derivative drug moieties. Ex. 1001, Abstract. For example, the Specification states that “there is a clear need in the art for dolastatin/auristatin derivatives having significantly lower toxicity, yet useful therapeutic efficiency [sic]” and purports that “[t]hese and other limitations and problems of the past are addressed by the present invention.” Id. at 4:25–29 (emphasis added). Moreover, each embodiment, example, figure, and assay disclosed in the Specification appears to use a drug moiety that is a dolastatin/auristatin derivative. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, 4:22–29, 50:56–52:30, 71:19–22, 131:23–48, Figs. 1–19, Examples 2–16. Claim 1, however, recites ADCs” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“As acknowledged by both Petitioner and Patent Owner, this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve essentially identical issues. See 6 Reh’g Req. 15; Prelim. Resp. 19 n.3. In particular, we note that claims 6–8 of the ’039 patent challenged in PGR2021-00042 depend from claim 1 of the ’039 patent challenged in this proceeding, and are challenged under essentially identical written description, enablement and prior art issues. Reh’g Req. 15. Thus, our decision to institute post-grant review in PGR2021-00042 effectuates our review of issues almost identical to those in this proceeding. Petitioner further argues that this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve related issues, and that “considerations of efficiency . . . therefore counsel in favor of the Board reviewing the patentability of claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of the ’039 patent as well.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that, because we are to review practically the same issues of this proceeding in PGR2021-00042, considerations of efficiency (i.e., efficient use of the Board’s resources) strongly weigh in favor of also instituting trial in this proceeding. See Reh’g Req. 15. Considering all the factors together as a whole, we determine that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the interests of efficiency and integrity of the patent system weigh against exercising discretionary denial under § 324(a). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution. We consider the merits of the Petition with respect to the threshold for institution below.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Instituted
“skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) (alteration in original). “The enablement requirement ensures that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement. The scope of enablement, in turn, is that which is disclosed in the specification plus the scope of what would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.” National Recovery Techs. Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1195–96 (Fed Cir. 1999). [Although] a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art . . . , that general, oft-repeated statement is merely a rule 24 of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure. . . . [W]hen there is no disclosure of any specific starting material or of any of the conditions under which a process can be carried out, undue experimentation is required; there is a failure to meet the enablement requirement that cannot be rectified by asserting that all the disclosure related to the process is within the skill of the art. It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement. Genentech Inc., 108 F.3d at 1366.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,808,039 - Offshore Technical Compliance, LLC v. Innovative Pressure Testing, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00923 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 were held unpatentable as obvious over BOP California, Wodjenski, and Winters; the revised motion to amend proposing claims 19–35 was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“1 The Petition requested review of claims 1–18, but Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claim 18. Pet. 3; Ex. 2001; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018). claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claims 1–17 of the ’143 patent are unpatentable; and (2) Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims 19–35 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“B. Testimony of Mr. Anderson Patent Owner contends that the testimony provided by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“D. Claim Construction The Board uses “the same claim construction standard that would be” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,207,143 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,207,143 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 13, 2021 · IPR2019-01595 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution on claims 1 and 2, finding no abuse of discretion on priority entitlement or motivation to combine Darbee and Golender.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the challenging party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a 1 Petitioner also filed a request for the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) to review the Decision (Paper 13 (Notification of Receipt of POP Request)), which the POP denied (Paper 14 (Order)). paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying institution of trial based on the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“issue upon which the priority determination turns—what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art—because Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony on that issue. And we did not overlook or misapprehend any testimony of Dr. Medvidovic regarding what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art because we could not have overlooked or misapprehended any testimony that was not presented in the Medvidovic Declaration. As discussed above, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony based on what is expressly disclosed in or necessarily follows from the disclosures of the priority applications was insufficient because Dr. Medvidovic did not explain adequately why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. Thus, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bear, provided detailed testimony and explanations regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the priority applications to describe the subject matter recited in the User Action Limitation (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 111–122, 126–127), Dr. Medvidovic did not provide adequate testimony or explanations to the contrary on the issue (see Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“misapprehend or overlook 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The mere fact that Dr. Medvidovic provided testimony different from the testimony of Mr. Bear does not by itself raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The mere existence in the record of dueling expert testimony does not necessarily raise a genuine issue of material fact.”). As the Request acknowledges, Dr. Medvidovic in his Declaration (Ex. 1010, “Medvidovic Declaration”) testified that the subject matter of the User Action Limitation is “neither expressly disclosed [in] nor necessarily follows from” the descriptions in the priority applications about event journal data. Req. 3 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 57–62). As discussed above, however, the test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351. The record shows that Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony in his Declaration as to what the disclosures in the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63. Nor did Dr. Medvidovic explain adequately in his Declaration why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. See id.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, however, “less education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 64–67). As stated in the Bear Declaration, Mr. Bear’s work experience includes at least 9 years of computer software programming using a variety of coding languages, such as BASIC, Pascal, C, C++, and 68000 Assembly Language. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–12. Thus, Mr. Bear is qualified to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed in the Decision, although we did not find the parties’ proposals for the level of ordinary skill in the art to be materially different, to the extent the testimony from the parties’ declarants on the level of ordinary skill in the art raised a genuine issue of material fact, we adopted and applied Petitioner’s definition for purposes of the Decision, being mindful of the rule that “a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” Dec. 9 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)). Thus, the record shows that, under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in consideration of § 42.108(c), the Decision appropriately credited Mr. Bear’s testimony on what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,015,446 - Flex Logix Technologies Inc. v. Venkat KondaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2021 · PGR2019-00042 · APJ Norman H Beamer · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 are unpatentable under §§ 102(a)(1) and 103; the revised motion to amend and motion to exclude are denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy, we do not expressly construe any claim term for purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Ex. 1001, 49:9–18. Petitioner argues, and we agree, that this language is non-limiting as reciting optional features that “may or may not” be present, and therefore irrelevant to the issue of anticipation.9 Pet. 54–57.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“In light of these and other disclosures in Wong ’308, Petitioner argues that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement the switches of the ’756 PCT application using multiplexers. Pet. 102; Ex. 1002 ¶ 182. Patent Owner does not challenge this fact — the references to multiplexers (also referred to a “muxes”) in the ’342 patent suggest that Patent Owner would concede this point. E.g., Ex. 1001, 9:67, 14:33. Upon review of the record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of the ’724 provisional application and Wong ’308 renders claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 obvious.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,003,553 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,003,553 - Bedra, Inc. / Berkenhoff GmbH et al. v. Seong, Ki ChulRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 4, 2019 · IPR2018-00668 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the rehearing request, leaving in place denial of institution for claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 because Petitioner did not show the claims lacked Korean Application priority support.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, Petitioner, as the party challenging the Decision, has the burden of showing it should be modified. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in determining that the Korean Application adequately describes cracks in the alloy layer and the coating layer as required by the challenged claims. Dec. 9–11. Assuming arguendo that Petitioner is correct that Figure 2a2 does not show such cracks, our Decision is supported by other evidence of record that Petitioner does not dispute. For example, in response to Petitioner’s argument that the Korean Application “only describes cracks within the ‘coating layer’ and not within any ‘alloy layer,’” (Pet. 20), we stated that the Korean Application “describes the ‘coating layer’ as comprising two sub-layers, one of which is the outer zinc coating layer of the ’036 patent and the other of which is the inner copper-zinc alloy layer of the ’036 patent.’” Dec. 9–10 (quoting Ex. 1013, 7; citing Ex. 1013, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003, Fig. 3b). Based on this disclosure, we concluded that “the Korean Application’s description of cracks in the ‘coating layer’ does not necessarily mean that those cracks are confined to the outer zinc layer and fail to reach the inner alloy layer.” Id. at 10.” slip op. at 4
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 6,492,036 - 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 - BMW Of North America, LLC v. Stragent, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00677 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 51–59 are unpatentable: claims 51–59 over Staiger and Millsap, and claims 51 and 54–57 over each OSEK-based obviousness ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“We have reviewed the relevant deposition testimony, in which Dr. Miller was asked to identify the standard he used when construing claim terms in his Declaration. Ex. 1025, 27:1–34:14. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Miller did not provide responses sufficient to conclude that he was aware of and/or applied the correct claim-construction standard. See id. at 27:5–6 (“I used what is generally accepted in the field.”), 27:9–11 (“So to – for construing the claim terms is providing a definition of what the term is. So I provided a general definition for the terms.”), 30:3–6 (“Well, that’s the standard that I used for construing the claim terms in this Declaration. I don’t know if that’s the legal qualification for construing claim terms.”), 32:18–23 (“broadest reasonable interpretation” would mean “when you’re defining a term that you would define it in a way that is, first of all, reasonable, that it makes sense and that it’s broad, meaning general and that it’s interpreting the phrase or the term”). Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that the appropriate remedy is exclusion of Dr. Miller’s testimony. As Patent Owner asserts, “[t]he role of the expert witness under the Federal Rules of Evidence is to ‘help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’” Paper 24, 2–3 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702) (emphasis by Patent Owner). As Patent Owner further asserts, Petitioner does not “impugn[]” Dr. Miller’s credibility as an expert in the subject matter at issue. Id. at 3–4. We agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s attack on the sufficiency of the evidence is improper in a motion to exclude.” Id. at 4 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc., Case IPR2013-00292 at 52–53 (Paper 93) (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014)). We accordingly deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Petitioner alternatively argues in its Reply that “Because Dr. Miller did not apply the correct claim construction standard, his opinions on claim construction (Ex. 2001, §§16-21) should be afforded no weight.” Reply 2. Although we agree that the weight to be accorded to Dr. Miller’s testimony on claim construction is impacted by the uncertainty of the analytical procedure he followed, we are not persuaded that his testimony should be discounted wholesale. Dr. Miller provides relevant opinions on a number of issues, particularly including how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand certain terms in light of the Specification, that are helpful to us as the trier of fact. “There is no more certain test for determining when experts may be used than the common sense inquiry whether the untrained layman would be qualified to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject involved in the dispute.” Ladd, Expert Testimony, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 414, 418 (1952).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“shared “in real time utilizing a second network protocol . . . ,” and dependent claim 59 recites that information is processed “to create, in real-time, messages in at least two other message formats . . . .” Petitioner argues that the Specification of the ’843 patent expressly defines “real-time”: “In the context of the present description, real-time may include any response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than 1 second.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 35–38. Accordingly, Petitioner proposes that “‘real-time’ should be construed as responses that occur in less than one second.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner contends that the definition from the Specification should be adopted. PO Resp. 15. We construe “real-time” as Petitioner proposes, i.e., as including responses that occur in less than one second. The first part of the quote cited above provided in the Specification (“may be measured in milli- or microseconds”) is not limiting because any response time, no matter how large or small, may be measured in milli- or microseconds.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“been reached in association with the storage request.” Petitioner proposes that “threshold” be construed consistent with a dictionary definition it provides, as a “value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1016, 5). Observing that the Specification of the ’843 patent uses “threshold” in the context of an elapsed time, Petitioner further proposes that this construction “include the maximum value (i.e., time-out) of a timer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 21–25, col. 8, ll. 47–51). We agree, and accordingly construe “threshold” as Petitioner proposes.3 3. “heterogeneous networks” Dependent claim 55 recites that the “apparatus is operable such that the first network and the second network are heterogeneous networks.” The Specification of the ’843 patent defines “heterogeneous networks”: “In the context of the present description, heterogeneous networks may refer to any different communication networks with at least one aspect that is different.” Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 26–29. In light of this explicit definition, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “heterogeneous networks” as Petitioner proposes, i.e., as “networks having at least one aspect that is different.” Pet. 14 (citing 3 Patent Owner advocates for the same construction advanced by Petitioner, but omits inclusion of the maximum value of a timer. PO Resp. 15. Although Patent Owner asserts that the construction is otherwise “the definition provided by the ‘843 Patent,” it does not cite to the ’843 patent to support its assertion, and we are unable to identify such a definition in the patent. Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that any distinction between the constructions is not material to any grounds. See Reply 6.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,566,843 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,566,843 - Search America, Inc. v. Transunion Intelligence, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2015 · CBM2013-00037 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: the TDHS System anticipates claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10–14; the asserted obviousness grounds and written-description ground also succeed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“First, Patent Owner contends that the plain meaning of “derived” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application was “obtained by reasoning” or “calculated.” Id. In support of this contention, Patent Owner cites the Declaration of Stephen Gray,1 which refers to one of the definitions provided by Random House Webster’s Dictionary, 4th ed., Ballantine Books (New York 2001). Ex. 2002 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 2002E). But as Petitioner points out, Mr. Gray refers to the last definition in the dictionary entry, although the first definition provided for the word “derive” is “to receive or get from a source.” Reply 4. Second, Patent Owner refers to a statement in the specification of the ’937 patent that “the debt to income ratio can be computed,” reasoning that “one of ordinary skill would understand that the credit information input into the method of claim 1 could not have been mere data taken from a credit report but rather would have been the result of some calculation or computation.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 65–66; Ex. 2002 ¶ 104). We disagree with Patent Owner’s reasoning, because the statement in the specification merely provides an example of a calculation. Furthermore, as Petitioner observes, Patent Owner’s position is untenable because the context of the identified statement refers to calculation of “qualification 1 As discussed below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude the Gray Declaration. criteria” rather than of “credit information.” See Reply 5. The claim’s text distinguishes between “qualification criteria” and “credit information.” In addition, and as Petitioner also observes, the prosecution history supports that credit information need not be calculated to be input. See id.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“a credit report of the patient.” Petitioner contends that the Data Broker module obtained a computerized report on each applicant at the request of an eligibility worker, extracted certain credit information, and combined the extracted credit information with data about the applicant to provide a combined report to the eligibility worker for viewing in the TDHS System. Pet. 38. Patent Owner contends that the credit information extracted from the computerized report is not “credit information derived from a credit report” (emphasis added). PO Resp. 20–21. We disagree. In accordance with our construction of “derived” as “received from a source,” we conclude that the Data Broker module inputs “credit information derived from a credit report.”” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds the “Belford has nothing to do with providing financial assistance for medical care of financially needy people” and that “Petitioner provides no reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teaching of a reference that discusses providing loans to people that have the ability to pay (credit worthiness) with needy people that cannot pay (charity).” PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner characterizes the relevant disclosures too narrowly. Belford is reasonably pertinent to the problem identified by Petitioner, namely the need for a patient to pay some amount even after receiving financial assistance. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Identification of the problem and how it is solved by Belford provides sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). We conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 9 would have been obvious over the TDHS System and Belford.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Evidence of commercial success, or other secondary considerations, is only significant if there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the commercial success.” Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2006). To establish a proper nexus, Patent Owner must offer “proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention—as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the patented subject matter.” In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,333,937 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,333,937
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.