- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, sensor system design and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 26. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’178 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring-type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,868,178 - Billerud Aktiebolag (Publ) v. Westrock MWV, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,293,142
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.