- Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,333,007 - Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 18, 2025 · IPR2024-00630 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Koebler and obvious over Koebler alone and in combination with other references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 120). Section 112 requires, inter alia, that the specification contain a written description of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). In determining whether the written description requirement is met, we consider “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). This analysis requires “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Thus, “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. For example, the analysis must consider “the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “While a prior application need not contain precisely the same words as are found in the asserted claims, the prior application must indicate to a person skilled in the art that the inventor was ‘in possession’ of the invention as later claimed.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also Purdue Pharma LP v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.”). However, “it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession. And while the description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure . . . , a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352 (citations omitted); see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“While the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification. The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.”).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Initially, we note that, although Petitioner presents a definition for “traction” in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 10), Dr. Morellas agreed with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation during his deposition: Q. What would a person having ordinary skill in the art understand the word “traction” to mean? A. It would mean the grip that the -- that the tire has with the road. Q. So when the tire is gripping the road, the vehicle will have traction; correct? A. Correct. Q. But if the wheels are spinning freely and not gripping the road, the vehicle has no traction; correct? A.· Correct. Ex. 2031, 36:8–17. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation of “traction” to be a measure “of the friction between the vehicle’s drive wheels and the road surface” such that “a vehicle’s wheels have ‘traction’ when wheel rotation acts to propel the vehicle along the roadway” and “[t]he vehicle’s wheels lose ‘traction’ when they spin freely relative to the road and thus are no longer acting to propel the vehicle along the roadway.” See PO Resp. 27; see also Tr. 18:4–5 (Petitioner’s counsel stating that “the ultimate disposition doesn’t matter which definition [of ‘traction’ the Board] adopt[s]”).” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Anticipation “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). A reference inherently discloses an element of a claim “if that missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, 593 F.3d at 1332 (quoting Cont’l Can, 948 F.2d at 1269).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,850,616 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,850,616 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 103 over Carr and Lauka, with additional references for the dependent-claim grounds, because the challenged claims lack priority support in the ’848 application.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Instacart submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–25). Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 19–23). But, as Consumeron’s expert acknowledges, Consumeron’s proposed definition “is not materially different” from Instacart’s. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 22. Accordingly, while we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Instacart our findings and analysis would be the same under Consumeron’s proposal.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“8 Consumeron argues Dr. Houh’s testimony should be given little weight because he “admitted he did not evaluate what the ’848 Application reasonably conveys to a skilled artisan.” Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2011, 74:8– 76:6, 83:4–84:1, 92:22–95:5). We disagree. Dr. Houh’s testimony indicates that he properly considered what the ’848 application reasonably conveys to a POSITA. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52, 56, 58, 61, 65. The portions of his cross-examination testimony cited by Consumeron do not suggest otherwise. For the reasons explained below, we credit Dr. Houh’s testimony over the competing interpretations offered by Consumeron and Dr. Mitzenmacher. 9 The dissent criticizes the majority’s analysis as “overly narrow” and too focused on the preferred embodiment. See Dissent 7–8. We disagree. Our analysis considers the entirety of the ’848 application, including all of the passages cited by Consumeron and the dissent.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“But it does not follow that an agent encountering a stock-out would necessarily respond according to the specific steps recited in claims 1 and 14.10 For example, instead of sending information about a replacement product, the agent could travel to another location to look for the same product, or notify the customer that the desired product could not be found and terminate the transaction. Because the ’848 application only contemplates scenarios where a product can be located, it does not describe the agent’s response in the event the identified product cannot be located or is unavailable, much less reasonably convey possession of a method comprising the specific, responsive steps in claims 1 and 14.11” slip op. at 17
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construed the terms “acquisition request” and “acquiring” in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR to encompass “not only a request for a delivery agent to shop for and purchase goods, but also a request for the agent to pick up or obtain pre-paid goods.” See 1357 IPR, Paper 35 at 11. It is undisputed that the ’465 patent at issue here and the ’835 patent at issue in the 1357 IPR are related and share essentially identical specifications, figures, and claim terms. See Pet. Reply 16; PO Resp. 38 n.6. Thus, for the same reasons as in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR, we likewise determine here that Instacart’s construction of “acquisition request” is the correct one. See SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents ‘derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.’” (quoting NTP, Inc., v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Consumeron provides no persuasive justification for us to depart from our prior reasoning in the related 1357 IPR.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,238,465 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,238,465 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Carr and Lauka.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least claims 1 and 14 of the ’465 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Lauka. And because Instacart demonstrates that at least one claim of the ’465 patent meets the threshold for institution, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a),(c); SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of the ’465 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” Prelim. Resp. 29. Consumeron’s definition appears to overlap significantly with Instacart’s definition. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we adopt the level of skill in the art as articulated by Instacart.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“product ordered by the customer is available and does not contemplate a scenario where the product is unavailable or otherwise describe the action to be taken if the product is unavailable. See Pet. 17–22. We agree, at least based on the preliminary record. In particular, with reference to Figures 2 and 3, the ’848 parent application describes a method where (1) a customer chooses “a store where a desired product is being sold” (step 105), (2) the customer selects a delivery agent and sends an “acquisition request” to the delivery agent (steps 108, 109, 110), and (3) “the selected delivery agent travels to the store location . . . and finds the desired product to be acquired” (step 113). Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 17, 20, 23 (emphasis added). “The delivery agent then communicates to the customer that the product has been identified, and the customer has the option of inspecting the product in real-time” (step 117). Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). “Next, the customer either approves or rejects acquisition of the inspected product” (steps 119, 120, 122). Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis added). That description in the ’848 parent application clearly presumes that the product ordered by the customer has been located and is available for inspection, which is at odds with the additional requirements of claims 1 and 14 of “failing to locate an identified product” and “determining that the identified product is not available.” Ex. 1001, 11:20 (claim 1), 12:30 (claim 14) (emphases added). To the extent Consumeron argues otherwise, we are not persuaded at this preliminary stage. According to Consumeron, the customer’s rejection of the product means that “the agent fails to locate a product that is satisfactory.” See Prelim Resp. 11. But nowhere do we discern that the ’848 parent application hinges the identity and availability of a product on whether it is satisfactory to the customer. That a product might not meet a customer’s satisfaction does not negate the description in the ’848 parent application that the agent locates and identifies the product in the first instance before giving the customer the option to inspect and reject the product. Indeed, because the customer placed the online order with a store advertising the product, the presumption is that the advertised product is available and satisfactory to the customer.8 And, while conceivably the purchase of a product cannot be fulfilled in the event the product is unavailable, it would seem to be improper hindsight to derive written description support by “[w]orking backward from a knowledge of the claims.” Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, based on the preliminary record, the ’848 parent application does not provide sufficient written description for the terms noted above. As such, we find that Instacart demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“and Lauka. See Pet. 30–44, 47–49. We begin with Instacart’s challenge of method claim 1. Instacart provides a detailed mapping of how Carr satisfies all the recited limitations of claim 1, except limitation [1.0.3], for which Instacart points to Lauka. See id. at 35–44. In particular, Instacart cites the following evidence in support of its contentions that Carr and Lauka, when combined, teach or suggest each of the recited limitations of claim 1: Limitation 1.0.1—“A method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods through one or more agents of a service provider” (Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 39, 43, 45, 92, Figs. 1, 3, 6;; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 97–100)); Limitation 1.0.2—“each agent having a mobile agent system in communication with at least one remote server,” (Pet. 35–37 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 40–43, 53, Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–104)); Limitation 1.0.3—“with each mobile agent system including: a digital image capture device and a communication device, said method comprising:” (Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 74, 88, 94, 122; Ex. 1006, 3:19–28, 3:49–57, 4:10–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105– 109)); Limitation 1.1—“receiving, through the at least one remote server, a first acquisition request from a customer for a first set of one or more goods;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 60, 73, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–112)); Limitation 1.2—“contacting, through the communications device, the one or more agents;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57, 74; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–115)); Limitation 1.3—“upon failing to locate an identified product of the set of one or more goods, electronically transmitting information on a replacement product for the identified product of the set of one or more goods to the customer using the digital image capture device of the agent, including:” (Pet. 38–40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 95, 96, 105, 107, ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116– 119)); Limitation 1.4—“obtaining a bar or QR code of the replacement product;” (Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95, 107; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120– 122)); Limitation 1.5—“determining the information from the bar or QR code, wherein the information includes at least one image of the replacement product; and” (Pet. 40–42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95–96, 116; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 123–127)); Limitation 1.6—“sending the information for the customer to approve the purchase of the replacement product based on the information determined from the bar or QR code; and” (Pet. 42– 43 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51, 96–99, Fig. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128– 130)); and Limitation 1.7—“upon receiving approval of the purchase from the customer, acquiring the replacement product, via the agent.” (Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131–132)); Instacart also provides a reason why one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Carr and Lauka with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–96); see also id. at 37 (“In view of the teachings of Lauka, a POSITA would have recognized that it was obvious to implement the UPC scanner functionality of Carr’s handheld device using an ‘imaging device’ such as that taught by Lauka, which specifies that the ‘imaging device 206 can comprise a video or still camera’ and ‘can be used to capture images.’ Ex.1006, 3:49-57; Ex.1003, ¶¶105- 107.”).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,238,465 - PTAB · Oct 21, 2021 · IPR2021-00767 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 7–11, and 14–18 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“It is the petitioner’s burden from the outset to show with particularity why a challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech. Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that regard, a petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged claims are unpatentable, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the relied-upon prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (a petition must identify “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for challenge to each claim”). A petition must also include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Here, the Petition does not identify sufficiently where each element of claim 1 is found in GPS 1, and does not include a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had either “a Bachelor’s Degree in mechanical engineering or a related discipline and at least two years of experience in the design or development of interlocking products (e.g. docking cradles and adapters for portable electronic devices),” or “five years or more of experience in the design or development of interlocking products.” Pet. 10. At this stage of the definition, nor provides a definition of its own. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is undisputed on this record, except that we delete the qualifiers “at least” and “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifier, if not deleted, expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus would preclude a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure.2 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 2 Petitioner incorrectly states that claims in an inter partes review are to be construed using the broadest reasonable construction standard, which applied to proceedings filed prior to November 13, 2018. Pet. 10–11; see also 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,341 (Oct. 11, 2018) (adopting “the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts and the ITC, both of which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) and its progeny”). See Prelim. Resp.; Pet. 10–11. For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an explicit construction.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“Claim 1 requires that (1) the adapter comprises a contactor and male positioning interface; (2) the contactor comprises a contactor surface and a plurality of contacts exposed and arranged on the surface that are electrically coupleable to the electronic device; (3) the male positioning interface defines a rim surrounding, and in contact with, a perimeter of the contactor surface of the contactor of the adapter; and (4) the rim guides the proper mating of the contactor of the adapter to the external connector. Ex. 1001, 34:3–13. Petitioner identifies components in the images of the Flex 8 taken from GPS 1 that it purports to be an adapter comprising a contactor with contacts, but does not explain why or how those identified components meet GPS 1 from which we can identify, or discern the function of, any component of the device identified in those images. See Pet. 16–18 (Petitioner’s contentions regarding the adapter limitation of claim 1); see also Ex. 1003 (GPS 1, nowhere identifying any feature of the device by reference to the images). Additionally, Petitioner does not identify anything in the images corresponding to the recited “male positioning interface” or “rim surrounding, and in contact with, a perimeter of the contactor surface . . . to guide proper mating of the contactor of the adapter to the external connector” limitations of claim 1. It is the petitioner’s burden from the outset to show with particularity why a challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech. Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that regard, a petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged claims are unpatentable, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the relied-upon prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (a petition must identify “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for challenge to each claim”). A petition must also include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Here, the Petition does not identify sufficiently where each element of claim 1 is found in GPS 1, and does not include a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence. Specifically, Petitioner fails to explain with any particularity how or why the images reproduced above support its view that GPS 1 discloses “an adapter coupleable to a portable electronic device for mating with an states that “[u]nder PO’s theories of infringement, GPS 1 discloses these recitations” and provides the annotated images reproduced above. Id. Patent Owner’s infringement contentions, however, are directed to a different product (the ATMOS Temperature Controlling Cradle Kit for Samsung Galaxy TAB A 8" Product), and Petitioner does not explain how that product relates, if at all, to the Flex 8 depicted in GPS 1. Moreover, Petitioner’s citation to Patent Owner’s infringement contentions to support conclusory statements not otherwise supported in the Petition amounts to an improper incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). The Petition, therefore, falls short of adequately establishing the identity or function of any component in the images of the Flex 8 from GPS 1. Petitioner states that, although the Petition primarily focuses on GPS 1 because “webpages are most easily reproduced” therein, “the same analysis applies to each of the AP Publications.” Pet. 16. As was the case with Petitioner’s challenge based on GPS 1, the Petition fails to explain with any particularity how the products depicted in GPS 2, GPS 3, and GPS 4 support its view that GPS 2, GPS 3, and GPS 4 each discloses “an adapter coupleable to a portable electronic device for mating with an external connector” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 18–21. Petitioner provides two still images from each of GPS 2, GPS 3, and GPS 4, which appear to show the Flex 8, without annotations or further explanation. Id. The Petition, therefore, also does not identify sufficiently where each element of claim 1 is found in GPS 2, GPS 3, and GPS 4. establishes that any of the AP Publications discloses the recitations of claim 1 directed to “an adapter coupleable to a portable electronic device for mating with an external connector.” Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 7–9 that depend directly or indirectly therefrom, are anticipated by the AP Publications.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,630,334 - LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · PGR2020-00054 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Final written decision
The sole claim was not shown unpatentable: it is definite, and neither asserted obviousness combination renders the design unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Designer of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“DOSA”) LKQ contends that: a designer of ordinary skill would be an individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design experience in the field of transportation design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in transportation or automotive design. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42; Ex. 1004 ¶ 41). Based on the final record, which includes testimony by LKQ’s witnesses, we adopt LKQ’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the final record, the purported issues related to a double line on the convex crease and the length of the single line do not create internally inconsistent drawings that would preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole. We have considered the testimony of each witness and we find Mr. Peters’ explanation most convincing that “the claimed design describes the convex band consistently because each of the figures presents at least one of the ways that a convex band can be represented. . . . Figure 1 illustrates the two intersecting lines of the convex band, while Figures 2-4 illustrate the single max height line of the convex band.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 58. Thus, we agree with GM that these figures are not inconsistent, but rather complementary because both connecting lines (as shown in Figure 1) and the max height line (as shown in Figure 2) are accurate depictions of the convex band of the claimed design. Further, GM has presented persuasive evidence that the varied length of the line between figures is also understandable depending on the point of reference of a particular figure. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 55, 56; Ex. 2006, 143:11–16, 144:4–7.” slip op. at 27
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“7. Overall Indefiniteness Analysis The figures of the ’065 patent are not perfect and the issues discussed above demonstrate that attention to detail matters when conveying the scope of a three-dimensional object in two dimensions. The proper standard for indefiniteness does not, however, require perfection, but instead requires that an invention is shown with “reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc., 572 U.S. at 910. The purpose of the definiteness standard is “to ensure that the disclosure is clear enough to give potential competitors (who are skilled in the art) notice of what design is claimed – and therefore what would be infringed.” Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376. Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we determine that the claimed design of the ’065 patent is reasonably understandable and gives potential competitors, and the public, notice of the scope of the claim. As analyzed above, LKQ has not shown that most of the alleged inconsistencies are, in fact, inconsistent features within the claim. Further, we determine that the inconsistencies argued by LKQ do not in the aggregate “preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole.” Id. at 1375–76.” slip op. at 45
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The Petition fails to adequately address the differences between the claimed ornamental fender design and the Fiat Toro in several important areas, including: the distinct upper portions of each design, the claimed design’s inwardly folded (L-shaped) top edge, and the rear lateral edge. Based on the final record, these differences combined with the other differences noted by LKQ (Pet. 81) are substantial and prevent the Fiat Toro from having design characteristics that are basically the same as that claimed in the ’065 patent – as required for a Rosen reference.” slip op. at 67
Patent outcomesUS D864,065 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus - Neosales Corp LP v. Allan WendlingInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00058 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable on the asserted obviousness or written-description grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324. The standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) requires Petitioner to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged patent claim is unpatentable. Petitioner has not met that standard and, accordingly, we do not institute a post grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a High School Diploma with 5 years of experience in the flooring industry” and that they “would also understand that there is a requirement that many accessible surfaces must be slip resistant to minimize hazards to users of the surface.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–26). On this record, for purposes of this decision, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least the qualifications set forth in Patent Owner and appears, on this record, to be consistent with the disclosures of the ’285 patent and the asserted prior art references. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [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 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim construction is not necessary when it is not “directed to, or has been shown reasonably to affect, the determination of obviousness”). accordance with their ordinary meaning except for “laminate structure” and “laminated.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–41). As to these terms, the Petition relies on a quotation, describing what is shown in Figure 3, that includes the term “laminate structure” from the ’285 patent.5 Id. at 15 (“As best shown in FIG. 3, the body is a laminate structure and comprises a bottom elastomeric layer 24 of an elastomeric material . . . floor surface 26.”); Ex. 1001, 2:16–20, Fig. 3. Petitioner also relies on Merriam- Webster’s definition of “laminate” as ‘a product made by laminating,’” where “laminating” means “to unite (layers of material) by an adhesive or other means.” Pet. 15 (quoting Ex. 1013) (citing Ex. 1011 [sic] Ex. 1013). Petitioner contends that “the term ‘laminate structure’ should be construed to mean a ‘body having an adhered elastomeric material’” and that “the term ‘laminated’ should be construed as ‘adhered.’” Id. On this record, and for purposes of this decision, we decline to construe any claim terms beyond the limited extent we do so below in our analysis, because it is not necessary to do so in reaching our decision on institution.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“On this record, Petitioner fails to establish a basis for the recited “sticky polyurethane gel layer.” Although it is evident that Haas’ “bonding layer 2” can itself be formed of an adhesive material (see, e.g., Ex. 1009, 5:48–50), it can also be formed of material that is not adhesive (or sticky) (see, e.g., id. at 5:61–63). Petitioner offers no support for Haas’ polyurethane foam layer itself being an adhesive or sticky material. Pet. 21– 24. Further, the disclosure relating to Haas’ polyurethane layer is contrary to the polyurethane being an adhesive or sticky material because Haas teaches applying an adhesive to the polyurethane layer. See, e.g., Ex. 1009, 8:36–38, 11:32–12:43 (Examples I–IV). Likewise, Petitioner offers no support for the polyurethane foam being a polyurethane gel. See, e.g., Pet. 21–24. Petitioner rather merely asserts that its “augmented carpet-to-floor contact system would produce the same effect claimed by a ‘sticky [bonding] polyurethane gel [foam] layer,’” which falls short of establishing that the polyurethane foam meets the limitation requiring gel. Pet. 24. The Phillips Declaration essentially repeats arguments set forth in the Petition, including as to the “sticky polyurethane gel layer that includes a Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–67, with Pet. 20–24. The cited testimony, thus, lacks the necessary objective evidence to support the opinions expressed as to Haas teaching or suggesting a “sticky polyurethane gel layer.” See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,806,285 - Intel Corporation v. Tela Innovations, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01637 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 15, 18, 20, and 22–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Becker and Greenway; the claims are not entitled to the earlier priority dates.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–11, 15, 18, 20, and 22–24 of the ’335 patent on the ground of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 16 (“Dec.”). After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response. Paper 28 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 35 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 38 (“Sur- Reply”). An oral hearing was held on December 9, 2020, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 45 (“Tr.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because the levels of skill set forth by both Petitioner and Patent Owner are based on a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a length and type of experience that overlap. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, which overlaps that set forth by Petitioner, particularly regarding a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, with five years of experience in semiconductor layout technology and integrated circuit design, and because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [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 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). 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. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner notes that there are disputed claim terms in the NDCA Action—namely, the terms “gate electrode,” “gate structure(s),” and “contact structure(s)”—but asserts that Becker and Greenway render the challenged claims obvious under any of the proposed constructions. Pet. 31–32. In light of this, Petitioner states that the Board does not need to construe any claim term in order to evaluate the asserted prior art. Id. Patent Owner provides the district court’s construction of the claim terms “gate electrode,” “gate structure(s),” and “contact structure(s)” in the NDCA Action, stating that Patent Owner “applies the District Court constructions” of these claim terms. PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner, however, does not expressly argue for those constructions, and states that “Petitioner’s obviousness arguments fail regardless of whether any of the above claims constructions are adopted by the Board.” Id. at 22. On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly to resolve the parties’ dispute. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Application and 2007 Original Application, Patent Owner does not disagree that the smallest gate pitch mentioned therein is 360nm (0.36 μm). Ex. 1005, 8, 9 11; Ex. 1007, 30–31; Pet. 20; PO Resp. passim. Petitioner has reasonably established that the claimed range of less than or equal to about 193nm would extend, at its lower bound, to the single-digit nanometer range. Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 1061, 329:10–21). The disclosures relied on by Patent Owner in the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application do not support the entire range of gate pitches from 193nm down to the lower bound of the single-digit nanometer range. Pet. 15, 19; compare Ex. 1005, 8, 11 (teaching a gate pitch of 360nm), Ex. 1007, 30–31 (teaching a gate pitch of 360nm) with Ex. 1008, 21–24 (requiring a gate pitch of less than or equal to about 193nm). This does not show possession of the entire range down to the single-digit nanometer range. See Lukach, 442 F.2d at 969. Regarding feature size, the smallest actual feature size mentioned in the 2006 Provisional Application and 2007 Original Application is 65nm. Ex. 1005, 5 (“65nm sized features”); Ex. 1007, 10 (“65 nm sized features”). Figure 1 of the 2006 Provisional Application, titled “Lithography Trends,” emphasizes that Patent Owner did not have possession of smaller gate pitches or feature sizes at the time of that application, but rather, that a 45nm feature size would be expected to be achieved in about 2012. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1; see Lukach, 442 F.2d at 969. We find that the disclosures of the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application do not show possession of the 45nm feature size. Looking next at Patent Owner’s “scalability” theory, we do not agree that the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application would inform one of ordinary skill in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed 193nm gate pitch ranges or 45nm feature sizes, or anything smaller, at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or the 2007 Original Application. In order for Patent Owner to prevail on its argument that the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application support the disclosure of a sub-193nm gate pitch range or 45nm features, the disclosures of those applications must convey with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the inventors possessed the invention claimed in the 2015 Application. See Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1351. We do not agree that the aspirational language in the 2006 Provisional Application demonstrates that the inventors had possession of the claimed range of gate pitches from 193nm down to the single-digit nanometer range, or possession of 45nm-sized features. Rather, the language of the 2006 Provisional Application describes a layout methodology, but fails to expressly teach scaling down to the gate pitches specified in the 2015 Application or explain to one of ordinary skill in the art how to do so. Even though “scaling” is a mathematical possibility, as argued by Patent Owner, that possibility does not equate to possession of the scaled-down structure itself. At the time of the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application, feature sizes were only “approaching” 45nm (Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1007, 3) or “expected to soon approach sizes as small as 45 nm” (Ex. 1007, 10). This language is, in effect, an acknowledgment that 45nm feature sizes were not yet a reality. Further, nothing in the 2006 Provisional Application shows how to make a 45nm feature, or how one of ordinary skill in the art could have made this happen in the 2006/2007 time frame. Similarly, Dr. Khatri’s scaling formula based on “simple geometry” that Patent Owner proposes to apply to the gate pitches and feature sizes identified in the 2006 Provisional Application is not found in that application. See generally Ex. 1005. The application’s use of “Moore’s Law as a crystal ball to predict future reductions in chip dimensions is not the same as inventing a chip with reduced chip dimensions, including reduced gate pitches down to unfathomable single-digit nanometer pitches.” Reply 6. The evidence demonstrates that scaling down feature sizes and gate pitches is not a simple function of time or a mere application of Moore’s Law, but the result of technological innovation that was not in the possession of the inventors at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application. See Ex. 1061, 341:2–9; Ex. 1077, 1283:21–1284:3 (ITC hearing transcript). Thus, we do not agree that, by virtue of Patent Owner’s proposed “scalability” theory, the inventors conveyed with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the inventors possessed the invention claimed in the 2015 Application at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,141,335 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,141,335 - Intel Corporation v. Tela Innovations, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01636 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 15, 18, 20, and 22–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Becker and Greenway because Petitioner proved the combination by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Application and 2007 Original Application, Patent Owner does not disagree that the smallest gate pitch mentioned therein is 360nm (0.36 μm). Ex. 1005, 8, 11; Ex. 1007, 30–31; Pet. 20; PO Resp. passim. Petitioner has reasonably established that the claimed range of less than or equal to about 193nm would extend, at its lower bound, to the single-digit nanometer range. Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 1061, 329:10–21). The disclosures relied on by Patent Owner in the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application do not support the entire range of gate pitches from 193nm down to the lower bound of the single-digit nanometer range. Pet. 15, 19; compare Ex. 1005, 8, 11 (teaching a gate pitch of 360nm), Ex. 1007, 30–31 (teaching a gate pitch of 360nm) with Ex. 1008, 22–23 (requiring a gate pitch of less than or equal to about 193nm). This does not show possession of the entire range down to the single-digit nanometer range. See Lukach, 442 F.2d at 969. Regarding feature size, the smallest actual feature size mentioned in the 2006 Provisional Application and 2007 Original Application is 65nm. Ex. 1005, 5 (“65nm sized features”); Ex. 1007, 10 (“65 nm sized features”). Figure 1 of the 2006 Provisional Application, titled “Lithography Trends,” emphasizes that Patent Owner did not have possession of smaller gate pitches or feature sizes at the time of that application, but rather, that a 45nm feature size would be expected to be achieved in about 2012. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1; see Lukach, 442 F.2d at 969. We find that the disclosures of the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application do not show possession of the 45nm feature size. Looking next at Patent Owner’s “scalability” theory, we do not agree that the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application would inform one of ordinary skill in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed 193nm gate pitch ranges or 45nm feature sizes, or anything smaller, at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or the 2007 Original Application. In order for Patent Owner to prevail on its argument that the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application support the disclosure of a sub-193nm gate pitch range or 45nm features, the disclosures of those applications must convey with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the inventors possessed the invention claimed in the 2015 Application. See Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1351. We do not agree that the aspirational language in the 2006 Provisional Application demonstrates that the inventors had possession of the claimed range of gate pitches from 193nm down to the single-digit nanometer range, or possession of 45nm-sized features. Rather, the language of the 2006 Provisional Application describes a layout methodology, but fails to expressly teach scaling down to the gate pitches specified in the 2015 Application or explain to one of ordinary skill in the art how to do so. Even though “scaling” is a mathematical possibility, as argued by Patent Owner, that possibility does not equate to possession of the scaled-down structure itself. At the time of the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application, feature sizes were only “approaching” 45nm (Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1007, 3) or “expected to soon approach sizes as small as 45 nm” (Ex. 1007, 10). This language is, in effect, an acknowledgment that 45nm feature sizes were not yet a reality. Further, nothing in the 2006 Provisional Application shows how to make a 45nm feature, or how one of ordinary skill in the art could have made this happen in the 2006/2007 time frame. Similarly, Dr. Khatri’s scaling formula based on “simple geometry” that Patent Owner proposes to apply to the gate pitches and feature sizes identified in the 2006 Provisional Application is not found in that application. See generally Ex. 1005. The application’s use of “Moore’s Law as a crystal ball to predict future reductions in chip dimensions is not the same as inventing a chip with reduced chip dimensions, including reduced gate pitches down to unfathomable single-digit nanometer pitches.” Reply 6. The evidence demonstrates that scaling down feature sizes and gate pitches is not a simple function of time or a mere application of Moore’s Law, but the result of technological innovation that was not in the possession of the inventors at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application. See Ex. 1061, 341:2–9; Ex. 1077, 1283:21–1284:3 (ITC hearing transcript). Thus, we do not agree that, by virtue of Patent Owner’s proposed “scalability” theory, the inventors conveyed with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the inventors possessed the invention claimed in the 2015 Application at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because the levels of skill set forth by both Petitioner and Patent Owner are based on a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a length and type of experience that overlap. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, which overlaps that set forth by Petitioner, particularly regarding a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, with five years of experience in semiconductor layout technology and integrated circuit design, and because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [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 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly to resolve the parties’ dispute. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Relying on the Shanfield declaration, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Becker and Greenway, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–106). For example, Petitioner argues that Becker and Greenway are closely related, in that they “apply the same 1D gridded layout style to the design of semiconductor chips,” with Greenway going further than Becker and disclosing “fabricating 1D gridded circuits using ‘next generation’ Interference Assisted Lithography (IAL).” Id. at 40. Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to combine Greenway with Becker for the additional reason that Greenway’s Interference Assisted Lithography (IAL) seeks to extend the use of 193nm OPL that underpins Becker, and is touted as being compatible with OPL.” Id. at 41. According to Petitioner, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Becker and Greenway “because the authors of Greenway performed ‘circuit and lithography simulations’ to confirm that ‘the proposed bitcell layouts can be successfully printed with IAL.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–106). We also find that Petitioner’s contended basis for one of ordinary skill in the art combining the teachings in the manner set forth by Petitioner is supported by the evidence of record. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–106.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 10,141,334 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,141,334
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.