• Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,998,854
• Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,333,007
• Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,850,616
• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,238,465
• United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2023 · IPR2023-00858 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Peng qualifies as prior art, so it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenge to claims 1–55.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “remaining limitations. As such, the Petition fails to establish that P3 does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Thus, the Petition fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art. Petitioner’s failure is fatal to all of the Petition’s challenges, each of which relies on Peng as prior art. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that Peng qualifies as prior art to the ’879 patent. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its challenges to claims 1–55 of the ’879 patent. We therefore deny institution of the petitioned inter partes review. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 21

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “Our reviewing court has explained that “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit noted that such support need not rise to the level of disclaimer and that it is possible to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same element. Id. In Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit expanded on the discussion of negative limitations, noting that “properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.” Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357; see also MPEP § 2173.05(i) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023) (stating that, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims”). We agree with Patent Owner that P3 provides support for the subject limitation to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, P3 discloses the use of the Witness application on a mobile device and the Witness application receives sensor data “typical for modern smart-phones.” Ex. 1505, 5:25–35. These sensor/data inputs include G-force/accelerometer, GPS module (speed, location, elevation, direction, etc.), 3D compass, and camera. Id. Additionally, P3 discloses the processing of mobile phone sensor data to derive driving information such as driving speed and G-force. P3 discloses, Another setting that can be controlled in the Settings Screen is the G-force threshold at which the Witness application will assume that a crash has taken place. It is expected that different vehicles and driving styles will need different G-force thresholds to be set to ensure a reasonable sensitivity to crash forces whilst also prevent crash detection false positives.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “3. Conclusion Petitioner does not argue that P3 does not disclose any of the remaining limitations. As such, the Petition fails to establish that P3 does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Thus, the Petition fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art. Petitioner’s failure is fatal to all of the Petition’s challenges, each of which relies on Peng as prior art.” slip op. at 21

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,198,879
• United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 27, 2023 · IPR2023-00912 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–7 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Peng qualifies as prior art to the ’271 patent.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of the petitioned inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “We find P3’s disclosure reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the limitation in claim 1 that requires determining a start of a driving period during which a mobile device is removably attached to a vehicle and the vehicle is in use, based on inputs received by a user interface and sensor data from the mobile device’s sensor set.” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “B. Legal Standards—Priority of Filing Date A U.S. patent application is entitled to assert priority to the filing date of an earlier-filed foreign application “for the same invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 119(a). This requires that the earlier-filed foreign application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. See In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”). “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). The written description “test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1016 (second alteration in original) (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We mostly agree with Patent Owner. First, as a matter of claim construction, we agree with Patent Owner that the claimed “driving score” corresponds to an assessment of what type of driver an individual is. See id. at 28; Ex. 1001, 10:10–17 (stating “driving information can be matched to a particular driver” which is “particularly useful when assessing a risk profile of said driver” and “[t]he driving information may comprise the driving score”), 12:4–9 (stating “[t]he driving score may be used to determine a risk profile for at least one of the vehicle and driver”). However, to the extent that Patent Owner would limit a driving score to a “number” (Prelim Resp. 28), we disagree. The ’271 patent specification does not support such a construction. See Ex. 1001, 10:10–17, 12:4–9.” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,311,271
• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCInstituted
  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 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,238,465
• United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00769 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–27 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Peng qualifies as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A. Legal Standards – Priority In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For a claim in a later-filed U.S. patent application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier U.S. or foreign patent application, the earlier application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that, to obtain the benefit of a parent application’s filing date under section 120, “the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘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.’” (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Id. (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner contends that “each priority document fails to provide support for at least [1.9]–[1.13] of independent claim 1 (nor the same limitations found in claims 26 and 27) of the ’369 patent.” Pet. 5. While Petitioner arguably provides some explanation for its challenge to limitation [1.9], we observe that Petitioner does not provide any evidence or supporting argument for limitations [1.10]–[1.13]. See Pet. 5–6; Prelim. Resp. 21. As discussed above, we determine that P3’s disclosure reasonably conveys to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of limitation [1.9] of claim 1 that requires “wherein the driving information is derived without data from vehicle sensors.” Ex. 1001, 31:63–64. With respect to limitations [1.10]–[1.13], we determine that the Petition is incomplete and lacks sufficient explanation for Petitioner’s challenge to these limitations.” slip op. at 19

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “Our reviewing court has explained that “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit noted that such support need not rise to the level of disclaimer and that it is possible to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same element. Id. In Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit expanded on the discussion of negative limitations, noting “that properly described alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.” Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357; see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2173.05(i) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023) (stating that, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims”). We agree with Patent Owner that P3 provides support for the limitation in question sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, P3 discloses the use of the Witness application on a mobile device and the Witness application receives sensor data “typical for modern smart-phones.” Ex. 1505, 5:25–35. These sensor/data inputs include G-force/accelerometer, GPS module (speed, location, elevation, direction, etc.), 3D compass, and camera. Id.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “written description support for claims 1, 26, and 27, and so fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art. Therefore, we determine Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges of claims 1, 26, and 27, all of which are based on Peng. C. Claims 2–25 Petitioner does not separately dispute that P3 discloses the limitations in dependent claims 2–25. Therefore, the Petition fails to establish that P3 does not provide sufficient written description support for any one of these claims, and so fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art.” slip op. at 21

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,192,369
• United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00519 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–13 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Peng qualifies as prior art, and all four grounds relied on Peng.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A. Legal Standards – Priority In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For a claim in a later-filed U.S. patent application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier U.S. or foreign patent application, the earlier application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (To obtain the benefit of a parent application’s filing date under section 120, “the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘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.’” (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). 35 U.S.C. § 112. “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[ ] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “Our reviewing court has explained that “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit noted that such support need not rise to the level of disclaimer and that it is possible to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same element. Id. In Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit expanded on the discussion of negative limitations, noting “that properly described alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.” Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357; see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2173.05(i) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023) (stating that, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims”). We agree with Patent Owner that P3 provides support for the limitation in question sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, P3 discloses the use of the Witness application on a mobile device and the Witness application receives sensor data “typical for modern smart-phones.” Ex. 1505, 5:25–35. These sensor/data inputs include G-force/accelerometer, GPS module (speed, location, elevation, direction, etc.), 3D compass, and camera. Id. Additionally, P3 discloses the processing of mobile phone sensor data to derive driving information such as the driving speed and G-force. P3 discloses that [a]nother setting that can be controlled in the Settings Screen is the G-force threshold at which the Witness application will assume that a crash has taken place. It is expected that different vehicles and driving styles will need different G-force thresholds to be set to ensure a reasonable sensitivity to crash forces whilst also prevent crash detection false positives. Ex. 1505, 14:19–23. Similarly, as discussed, P3 discloses that “the application may be arranged to detect the vehicle speed, and at a particular speed, switch off the screen entirely. It should be understood that the device will continue to record video, telemetry and other information even when the screen is switched off.” Id. at 15:5–8.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “A. Legal Standards – Priority In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For a claim in a later-filed U.S. patent application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier U.S. or foreign patent application, the earlier application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (To obtain the benefit of a parent application’s filing date under section 120, “the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘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.’” (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). 35 U.S.C. § 112. “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[ ] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Id. (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 8

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,633,487
• Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00610 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 103; the contingent motion to amend is denied for substitute claims 16–30.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining” slip op. at 8

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

    “that the ’756 Application does not provide written description support for proposed substitute claim 23. See Prelim. Guid. 6–8. Petitioner’s Sur-reply agrees with that preliminary conclusion. See Mot. Sur-reply 1–7. For the following reasons, we now conclude again that the ’756 Application does not provide written description support for the limitation of claim 23 reciting “wherein a first orientation of the first helical coil is different from and perpendicular to a second orientation of the second helical coil.” Mot. App. A (pg. 9).” slip op. at 106

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “relies on as having been allowed due to objective indicia. See Ex. 1006, 7:19–8:60. At a high level, the independent claims each recite a system for hydraulically fracturing an underground well formation comprising at least one pump driven by one or more electric motors, and a variable frequency drive to control the speed of the motor(s) and perform motor diagnostics. See id. at 7:19–33 (claim 1), 7:57–8:10 (claim 10), 8:31–51 (claim 19). None of the parent ’410 patent’s claims recites swivel connections located in the pump’s discharge piping branch as recited in claim 1 of the ’824 patent at issue here. See id. at 7:19–8:60. And, claim 1 of the ’824 patent does not recite an electric motor, or a variable frequency drive, like the parent ’410 patent’s claims do. Thus, even if the prosecution history of the parent ’410 patent establishes a nexus between Clean Fleet product(s) and one or more claims of the ’410 patent, it is not at all clear to us how this nexus might also apply to claim 1 of the ’824 patent. We reached the same conclusion in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 41.” slip op. at 72

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

    “leads to base swivel joint 26. See id. ¶ 14. “The jumper line 20 may comprise any combination of generally straight pipes and/or swivel joints . . . to isolate the base unit 24, and thus the articulated arm 22, from vibration and movement of the pumping unit 14.” Id. ¶ 15. Accordingly, first swivel joint 36 and second swivel joint 38 together “provide five degrees of freedom between the first pipe 34 and the base swivel 26” so “the base unit 24 will not be affected by vibration and movement of the pumping unit 14.” Id. ¶¶ 15–16.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,934,824 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,934,824

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.