- Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 26, 2026 · IPR2025-00220 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Wallen and Berggren because the combined teachings render the claimed subject matter obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree that Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction is wholly unsupported by, and inconsistent with, the language of independent claims 1, 7, and 13, and the aims of the ’670 Patent Specification. See Ex. 1001, 2:3– 25, 9:32–10:5, 12:51–67, 18:54–19:6, 19:26–42, 20:12–26. Moreover, the cited extrinsic evidence––testimony by Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Lomp–– does not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is internally inconsistent and also undermined by Dr. Lomp’s inconsistent deposition testimony. See Ex. 1036, 11:6–17, 12:9–12; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 40, 48. Similarly, the extrinsic evidence cited by Petitioner (e.g., Exs. 1037, 1038, 2009) undermines Patent Owner’s position emphasizing the intended recipient devices of SIB1. In summary, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction because it is unsupported by the claim language, the ’670 Patent Specification, and the cited extrinsic evidence. with the ordinary and customary meaning which does not include limiting SIB1 to an ordinary legacy SIB and excluding MTC specific SIBs or SIBs intended for MTC devices. In addition, we need not construe explicitly any other claim term or phrase. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. 868 F.3d at 1017 (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree from an accredited program in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and at least two years of professional experience relating to wireless communication technology” and “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’670 Patent Specification and the prior art of record. slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“filing date. As explained above, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that Wallen is not prior art because the ’670 Patent is entitled to the earlier January 20, 2012, filing date of foreign priority application GB1201000. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “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.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). Patent Owner’s arguments fail to meet this burden of production because, aside from addressing a system information block 1, Patent Owner’s arguments do not substantively address how GB1201000 provides written description support for any other limitations of the claimed invention. See PO Resp. 43, 57. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the claimed invention in foreign priority application GB1201000, the burden of production did not shift back to Petitioner, and,” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“primary synchronization signal (PSS), a secondary synchronization signal (SSS), and a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) including a master information block (MIB).” See Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–75; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 77, 83–84). Petitioner implicitly acknowledges that Wallen does not expressly disclose a physical broadcast channel (PBCH), but relies on Berggren for confirming that the LTE standard specifies that a PBCH carries the MIB. See Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 74; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 73–75). According to Petitioner, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit Wallen’s MIB using a PBCH as taught by Berggren.” Pet. 43 (citing Pet. 33–38). In particular, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated for Wallen’s LTE system to utilize the LTE standard implementation details taught by Berggren,” and “it would have been predictable and beneficial for Wallen’s user equipment to receive the MIB in the [PBCH], as was standard in LTE.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58), 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). According to Petitioner, “the combination is nothing more than ‘the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.’” Pet. 38 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). Based on the entire record developed during trial, we are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wallen’s broadcast MIB with Berggren’s teachings of using a PBCH for transmitting broadcast MIBs. See Pet. 33–38; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,206,670 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,206,670 - PTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · PGR2024-00034 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds after finding at least one claim more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute a post-grant review, we must determine that “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We note that the identification of a Ph.D. as an example of “more formal education” creates a vast range of education relative to a bachelor’s degree. Thus, we treat the identification of a Ph.D. just as it is—an example—and not a requirement. In this case, “more formal education” can be satisfied by a level of education less than a Ph.D (but greater than a bachelor’s degree). Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, definition, limited as discussed above, for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have understood Unger’s disclosure to “suggest the use of a torsion spring to facilitate attachment and detachment, because torsion springs are designed to impart this functionality.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 118). Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood that there were a limited number of ways to impart the referenced resilient or flexible ‘manipulation,’” and “would have been motivated to look to various known solutions to impart the suggested functionality, including the torsional spring mechanism of Smith that is used in a similar hearing protection device application for a similar purpose as Unger’s mounting arms (to apply a clamping force).” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,736,855 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · PGR2024-00026 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–7 and all grounds because Petitioner showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim lacks written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments, cited portions of the Specification, and supporting testimonial evidence demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–7 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“patent describes that “angular position transducer 78 is placed on top of swing leg pivot shaft 24” and that “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate and duplicates the angular movements of swing leg 20 about the pivot shaft.” Ex. 1001, 12:15–16, 12:20–22, Figs. 5, 7. The ’723 patent also describes that “[a]ngular position transducer 78 is mounted inside . . . protective can 90 . . . which is bolted to hinge bracket 28 via an upright holding arm 92” and that “trigger pin 94 projects upwardly from the top surface of pivot shaft 24 and cooperates with angular position transducer 78 to generate an angular position signal.” Id. at 12:28–33, Fig. 5. These descriptions expressly convey that angular position transducer 78 is on pivot shaft 24 and mounted inside protective can 90 that is bolted to hinge bracket 28. Id. at 12:15–16, 12:20–22, 12:28–30, Figs. 5, 7; see also Prelim. Resp. 17 (describing the same embodiment shown in Figs. 5 and 7). According to Petitioner, the ’723 patent describes the pivot shaft as part of the hinge bracket, not the modular frame or swing leg. Pet. 109–110 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:42–46, 12:17–22). On the preliminary record, we agree because the cited portions of the Specification describe that a “hinge bracket is interposed between each swing leg and an associated surface of the bolsters and includes a fixed, upright pivot shaft that pivotally engages the swing leg for pivotal movements” and “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate.” Ex. 1001, 7:42–45, 12:20–21. We also agree that “even if one were to find that the hinge bracket is part of either the modular frame or swing leg (contrary to the claims and specification treating these all as separate components), the specification would only provide written description for one of the claimed alternatives.” Pet. 110 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this preliminary stage, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We will also not use our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition based on arguments previously presented in IPR2021-00135, because Petitioner relies on a Board determination regarding claim 8 from IPR2021- 00136, not arguments previously made for claim 1 in IPR2021-00135. Pet. 111–115, 119; Prelim. Resp. 8–9; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Furthermore, we determined the effective filing date of claim 8 of the ’571 patent without deciding, that other challenged claims, such as claim 1, were entitled to their earliest possible effective filing date. See Godberson-Smith, Paper 61 at 11, 12.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,772,723 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00485 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“have a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products, as well as experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Inst. Dec. 8 (emphasis added). Neither party disputes this conclusion. PO Resp. 9; see generally Pet. Reply. As such, we adopt our preliminary definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“designing medical devices and components, and that those experiences represent work designing products similar to mechanical beverage systems, Patent Owner fails to direct the Board to evidence sufficient to establish that this experience, in the aggregate, amounts to at least “five years” or involved “experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Inst. Dec. 8 (adopting Patent Owner’s own proposed definition of one of ordinary skill in the art); see Sur-reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1066, 34:16–35:9; Ex. 1067, 101:3– 12, 102:20–104:9; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 3–4, 8–10) (failing to establish adequately, if at all, how Dr. Howle’s qualifications include the requisite minimum five-year period of relevant design experience). Accordingly, we determine that Dr. Howle is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.10 See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]o offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case,” including the issue of patent “validity,” the “witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.” Id. (Board’s emphasis). “Without that skill, the witness’[s] opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Id. at 1377.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Second, Patent Owner and Dr. Howell assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood upon reading the second German application that the capsule features described would be intended to be combinable with each of the described embodiments.” PO Resp. 40; Ex. 2017 ¶ 61. But Patent Owner and Dr. Howell do not explain how a barcode could be used in the devices depicted in Figures 16–18, which place the detection means 2.4.2 on the outer circumference of the flange (not its underside) and rely on toothed-rings physically interacting with either the chamber, retaining arms, or a pinion. Ex. 1047, 12:22–31, 13:8–18. Indeed, the second German priority application explains that means 2.4.2 physically interacts with retaining arms 30 (embodiments of Figures 16 and 17) or a pinon (embodiment of Figure 18), and if means 2.4.2 were not present in these embodiments the capsule would either “drop through into a waste container” or could not be inserted through the insertion shaft. Id. at 12:22– 27, 13:9–12, 13:16–35 (noting that in the embodiment disclosed in Figure 18 a pinon interacts with means 2.4.2 and only when means 2.4.2 “is formed complementary to the teeth of the means” can the capsule be inserted). At no point does the second German application identify means 2.4.2 as a barcode or suggest a barcode could be used as the detection means. The second German application also states that A person skilled in the art is also aware that for example the insertion shaft may also contain a sensor, for example a camera, clear, however, that element 27 is part of the brewing chamber, and not the capsule. Ex. 1047, 12:27–31, 13:5–8, 13:21–26, 15:36. Thus, we are not persuaded that the toothed ring is in fact on the bottom side of the flange. which senses the shape of the means 2.4.2. For example, it would be possible, in the present case, for the shape of the teeth and/or the spacing between the same to be sensed. This signal, in turn, is passed to a control means, which frees, for example, the brewing chamber if the capsule is the correct one. Ex. 1047, 14:11–19. Again, despite using a camera to determine if a capsule is “the correct one,” the second German application does not suggest using a barcode in place of the toothed-ring structure, or suggest moving the location of the detection means 2.4.2 from the outer surface to the underside of the flange. This reinforces that the inventors did not contemplate using a barcode in the embodiments depicted in Figures 16–18.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As asserted by Petitioner, Jarisch teaches how to move a code in a centrifugal brewing system to the bottom of the flange and how to configure a light-conductive material so that the detector’s light source will reach the bottom of the flange. Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 23–24 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 184–185; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–84, Fig. 5). And, although Figure 61 of Yoakim discloses a flare in its brewing chamber, bodily incorporation is not required, and we are directed to no persuasive argument or evidence that Yoakim could not be configured with a straight chamber, as generally depicted in Figure 5 of Jarisch. Pet. Reply 24 (noting that Dr. Howle’s testimony on this subject is “conclusory” and depends on “bodily incorporation”). As such, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to place the code at the bottom of the flange and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.17 Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. Patent Owner further contends that Yoakim requires that the capsule holder be capable of receiving a set of multiple volume capsules and that 17 As discussed above, Mr. Jobin has extensive experience in the design of brewing devices. Conversely, Dr. Howle has limited experience in this field and is not one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Mr. Jobin’s testimony is more persuasive regardless of the discrepancy in experience between the two declarants, when this difference in design experience is considered, it only serves to increase the weight we give to Mr. Jobin’s testimony. there is a “snug fit” to avoid “unbalances.” PO Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 205, 479, 484, 507, 512). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner does not explain adequately how the use of Jarisch’s “straight chamber” with a capsule holder that does not engage with the side wall of the capsule would allow insertion of the multiple volume capsules or permit a “snug fit.” Id.; PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner’s assertion that Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules that might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure is ineffective to undercut the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on this point. As noted by Patent Owner, Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules which might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure. But Petitioner is not seeking a bodily incorporation of Yoakim and Jarisch, and other embodiments of Yoakim do not require the type of flared capsule identified by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004, Fig. 63. Moreover, we are directed to no persuasive evidence that Jarisch’s lack of contact between the capsule side wall and the holder would render the device inoperable or even less effective. Id. (citing Ex. 2019, 36:18–37:6; Ex. 1005 ¶ 23 (Jarisch explaining that its device includes a capsule holding means and that the capsule may be successfully driven in rotation). As such, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to design the chamber of Yoakim to allow reading of a barcode on the underside of the flange and that this design would allow for successfully receiving single-serve capsules and driving them in rotation. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184; Ex. 1005 ¶ 23.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 11,230,430 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,230,430 - PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00114 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would have been obvious over DiPerna964 and Strack.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We determine below that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial. Thus, we do not reach the issue of whether the merits are compelling. CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022- 01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (Board must first address Fintiv factors 1–5, and should engage the compelling merits question only if that analysis favors discretionary denial) (“CommScope”). 7. Balancing the Fintiv Factors Weighing against exercising our discretion to deny institution is factor 3 involving the parties’ limited investment and lack of substantive orders in the District Court litigation. Factor 4 concerning the limited overlap of the issues in the two cases also weighs against discretionary denial. Only factor 5, that Petitioner and the defendant in the District Court litigation are the same party, weighs in favor of discretionary denial. Factor 1 concerning the absence of a stay in the District Court litigation, and factor 2 concerning the close proximity between the start of trial in the District Court litigation and the estimated deadline for the final written decision, are neutral on the facts of this case. We therefore determine that the balance of factors 1–5 weighs against discretionary denial. Accordingly, we do not consider the issue of whether compelling merits have been shown under factor 6. See CommScope, Paper 23 at 4–5.2” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1006, 23) (emphasis added). From this passage, we understand the “safety” switch to be “separate” from the panic button, not a part of it. This understanding is reinforced by claim 7 which depends from claim 1 and recites that the mobile device “further compris[es] a safety switch,” meaning it is a separate element from the panic button. Ex. 1001, 9:3–4. Thus, moving the safety switch into position readies the panic button, which is not the same as the panic button readying itself to perform functions in claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent. Patent Owner does not sufficiently address this issue in its assertions. See Prelim. Resp. 5–7. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosures elsewhere in the ’404 patent is likewise not persuasive. Prelim. Resp. 5–6. For example, the ’353 application mentions “ready” in relation to using a self-defense mechanism such as pepper spray, which has not been shown to be related to the panic button. Ex. 1006, 5, 9–10. Although Patent Owner relies on the ’353 application’s description of voice activation using a codeword, voice activation does not ready the panic button for activation to perform functions, but actually activates the panic button to perform those functions. Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 1006, 17). Petitioner thus met its burden here to demonstrate that claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent lack written description support for a panic button adapted to “ready itself” to perform the recited functions because the limitation is not present in the ’353 application to which the ’404 patent claims priority. Pet. 8–10. The burden of production thus shifted to Patent Owner to demonstrate that the ’353 application has written description support for this limitation, which it has not done on this record. Prelim. Resp. 5–7.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“of the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that at least one of claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the ground set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute trial for all challenged claims on all grounds asserted by Petitioner. See SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). Our factual findings, conclusions of law, and determinations at this stage of the proceeding are preliminary, and based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims or to the construction of any claim term. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent is hereby instituted on all challenges to patentability set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a POSITA would have combined DiPerna964 and Strack with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 16–18. DiPerna964 and Strack are directed to similar mobile devices for use in security and emergency situations. Id. at 16–17. Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that a POSITA would have regarded Strack’s arming and timer technique as an improvement that would have been useful with DiPerna964’s mobile device (at least in some circumstances) to provide the user with additional time to evaluate whether triggering the 911 call is warranted. Id. at 17–18. This amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, which is a recognized rationale for combining prior art references. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401, 417 (2007). Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has presented a reasonable likelihood that a POSITA would have combined DiPerna964 and Strack with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 16–18.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,265,404 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · IPR2022-01564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Keith; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground over Hanson and Keith.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“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.’” Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure,” and the test “is 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” of that application. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. But, “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.” slip op. at 33
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.”). slip op. at 13
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2022). “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · PGR2023-00052 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–41 were unpatentable under any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but does not offer a definition of its own. Prelim. Resp. 5. According to Patent Owner, “[t]his Petition and related declaration propose two alternative levels of ordinary skill in the art, where the second alternative does not require any formal education or any experience in the field of oil or gas production.” Id. While Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain how a different level of skill is likely to alter Petitioner’s analysis. Instead, Patent Owner contends that it “applied Petitioner’s articulation and confirmed the analysis detailed below would not change based on disagreements over the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 2101 ¶¶ 16–17). 8 To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s statement on the level of skill in the art. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). The prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because the meanings of the claim terms “blockchain mining devices,” “mining processor,” and “adapted to mine transactions” are inextricably linked with Petitioner’s indefiniteness grounds, we will address the meaning of those terms in the context of the parties’ arguments to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy as set forth below in Section III.C. Similarly, we will address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed means-plus-function limitations in our discussion of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as set forth below in Section III.E. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“To satisfy the definiteness requirement of § 112(b), a patent’s claims must, when “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. We are not persuaded that the Petition shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that the term “blockchain mining devices,” as recited by independent claims 1 and 24, is indefinite. As an initial matter, we agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s indefiniteness theory is flawed because its ‘alternative interpretations’ are of its incorrect claim construction rather than the claim language in view of the specification as required by Nautilus.” Prelim. Resp. 13. We find the Specification informs, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the meaning of the term “blockchain mining devices.” The 18 Specification informs us that “each blockchain mining device 12 may be composed of suitable components. The blockchain mining device 12 may have a network interface, such as network equipment 88, and one or a plurality of mining processors 92 (92A-92E for example).” Ex. 1001, 15:21–25. And, claim 1 recites that the “blockchain mining devices [are] connected to the generator” and “each have a mining processor and are connected to a network interface.” Id. at 19:59–62. Thus, reading the term “blockchain mining devices” in light of the language of the claim and the Specification, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “blockchain mining devices” to mean a device composed of, for example, a network interface and one or more processors. Id. at 15:21–25, 19:59–62.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,574,372 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “‘It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the 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.’” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. We agree with Petitioner there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. We find that the disclosure of the ’653 application—limited to general teachings of a smart card, an operating system, and a smart card manager—is insufficient to show possession of limitation [1(j)]. See Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. As we explained above, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571−72. The ’653 Application contains no disclosure of replacing applications, even if the disclosure might render such replacing obvious, it is not sufficient to show the possession required to establish entitlement to a priority date. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’724 patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than March 4, 2012.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that “[t]he parties agree on the level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for all terms not expressly construed below,” and indicates that in parallel District Court litigation, the parties agreed to claim construction for the term “emulator device” to mean “hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that the term “application” should be construed to mean “‘software program suitable for being executed on a portable device,’” but that the “distinction between the parties’ respective proposals need not be resolved for this proceeding.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner finally contends that the phrase “a portion of or in entirety” in each independent claim means “in its entirety or partially,” but not both. Id. at 9. Patent Owner submits that “[t]he parties agree that the Board should construe ‘emulator device’ as ‘hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.’” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner “does not believe that any other terms require construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding.” Id. We apply the agreed upon constructions above, but otherwise find that no express constructions are necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that, even if the applications were stored in “generic memory” as Patent Owner contends, Zhu provides adequate security and would not undermine Petitioner’s motivation to combine. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380 (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”). Indeed, Zhu addresses the problem Patent Owner contends it would cause in the combination.3 As Zhu 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should be precluded from discussing Zhu’s encryption embodiment because it was not raised in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. The claims do not recite anything about how the data should be stored. Thus, it is not surprising that the Petition did not address it. Patent Owner raised the teaching away argument regarding the security of the data. See PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner relies on the exact same mapping, same motivation, and same arguments why Zhu accounted for certain limitations. See Reply 4–11. Petitioner’s Reply merely explained that Zhu did address the problem Patent Owner contended would “teach away” from the combination. Indeed, Patent Owner was aware of Zhu’s teachings and addressed them in their Patent Owner Response. The Federal recognizes, “[l]oading one of the smart card applications already resident on the smart card to another memory location on the mobile device can provide sufficient memory for the selected smart card application, but can also create a security problem.” Ex. 1006 (Zhu), 3:25–34. To address this problem, Zhu proposes encrypting these applications in generic memory which “reduces the possibility of unauthorized access to the information.” Id. at 3:59–61, 8:30–55, 9:28–33; Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6. Although acknowledging this disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, testifies that Zhu’s encryption is inadequate and that encryption would have certain drawbacks. See Ex. 2002 (Weaver Decl.) ¶ 69. We find this testimony, which directly contradicts the teachings of Zhu that encryption is an adequate solution, lacks sufficient support to be entitled to much weight. Dr. Weaver provides no citations to support his contention that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would find encryption so inadequate or problematic as he now contends. Moreover, we find that Dr. Weaver’s testimony on cross examination provides an additional, independent basis to give this testimony little weight. On cross examination, Dr. Weaver contended that there was nothing uniquely inadequate about the particular encryption scheme disclosed in Zhu, but rather that his “opinion was more general, that encryption schemes known in the 2012 time frame were all breakable with computing power and time,” and thus, inadequate Circuit has explained that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding Zhu’s encryption are proper. for storing payment applications in a mobile device’s general memory. Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 26:11–23; see also id. at 23:3–8 (“[D]oes encryption ever provide a sufficiently high security to permit storing payment application on a mobile device’s general memory? A. No”); 24:15–25:23 (testifying all publicly known encryption schemes in 2012 were breakable). However, when confronted with the fact that the ’724 patent discloses storing payment application on general baseband memory using an encryption method that was breakable, id. at 26:24–29:7, Dr. Weaver testified that this encryption method was sufficient to allow storing payment applications in general baseband memory even though it was “not perfectly secure,” id. at 29:8–14. Dr. Weaver provides no explanation or rationale why the encryption method in the ’724 patent, which he admits suffers from the same drawbacks he identified with respect to Zhu, is sufficient, but other encryption methods would not be sufficient. In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner attempts to rehabilitate Dr. Weaver’s testimony with justifications and qualifications not found in his original testimony. Sur-Reply 7–8. Yet, Dr. Weaver’s testimony discussed above was clear and unequivocal. See Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 24:15–29:14. Patent Owner made no effort to redirect his testimony at his deposition, so it cannot now do so through mere attorney argument. We find the inconsistency between Dr. Weaver’s treatment of Zhu and his treatment of similar disclosure in the ’724 patent exposes the insufficient reasoning supporting his opinions regarding the adequacy of Zhu’s use of encryption in the combination. Accordingly, we give no weight to his testimony that a skilled artisan would not have combined Zhu with a Buhot/GPC system due to security concerns. In contrast, we find the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the use of encryption and the tradeoffs with the benefits of adopting Zhu’s memory management technique, which he offers in his Supplemental Declaration, to be well-reasoned, consistent with the disclosure of Zhu and the ’724 patent4, and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. As Petitioner recognizes, “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver testified, decryption without access to the security keys is an extremely computationally intensive and time-consuming process. Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 23:17–25:2; see also Ex. 10175, 132. Mr. Smith testifies that the benefits of using encryption would be sufficient to resolve the security concerns Patent Owner raises, and that any burden of generating a certificate would be outweighed by the benefits of using encryption and the memory advantages Zhu’s technique would offer. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s security concerns would be” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,018,724 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,018,724 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00485 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–10 on all petition grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani.
RulingsInstitution decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“second German priority application do not disclose every limitation of independent claims 1 and 7 of the ’430 patent. Figure 1 does not depict a barcode under the flange, but rather the use of raised areas on the side of the capsule that act as an identifier. Ex. 1047, Fig. 1. Figure 2, coupled with its associated description, might suggest that the barcode could be on the portion of the base element facing away from the membrane,9 but this figure does not disclose many of the other elements of the claim, including holding arms, a drop box, annular convexity and concavity, and a pump to supply water to the single-serve capsule. Pet. 41; Ex. 1047, 9:21–24, Fig. 2. We also determine that Patent Owner does not sufficiently demonstrate that Figures 16–18 of the second German priority application provide adequate disclosures showing that the inventors were in possession 9 We question whether the second German priority application supports placing a barcode under the flange. The application states that the barcode could “be provided on that side of the peripheral region of the basic element which is directed away from the membrane.” Ex. 1047, 9:21–24. This statement is rather ambiguous as to where the “peripheral region” is that is “directed away from the membrane.” The text goes on to explain, however, that “[t]his barcode,” i.e., the barcode that is “directed away from the membrane,” “is read by a detector 13,” which in Figure 2 is oriented to read a barcode on the top surface of the flange. Id. at 9:25–26, Fig. 2. This suggests that the barcode is not on the bottom side of the flange and that arrow 15 is pointing to the outer portion of the peripheral region that is not covered by the membrane, and not necessarily the bottom of the flange. First, the second German priority application describes the use of “an identifier” that is read by a “sensor/detection means” and then compared to a stored identifier. Ex. 1047, 2:29–31. In Figure 2 the identifier may be a barcode and the detection means is detector 13. Id. at 9:11–26. In Figures 16–18, however, element 2.4.2 is not an identifier, but rather a “a form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or a detection means.” Id. at 12:22– 24 (emphasis added). As such, it is unclear how this disclosure would demonstrate possession of the disputed claim limitation, when combined with the other limitations of claims 1 and 7 as a whole. Second, it is not evident that the toothed rings of Figures 16–18 are on the underside of the flange, as asserted by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 42 (asserting that a barcode “could be located on the bottom side of the flange instead of the toothed ring”); Prelim. Sur-reply 4. The second German priority application states that the “form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or detection means 2.4.2” is located in the “outer region” of the peripheral region 2.4. Ex. 1047, 12:22–24. We are directed to no evidence that this “outer region” is on the bottom of the flange, and Figures 16–18 each appear to depict means 2.4.2 on, or forming, the outer circumference of the flange.11 Id. at Figs. 16–18, 6:8–11 (noting that the toothed ring is provided “on the outer circumference of the periphery”). 10 The parties dispute whether Figure 16 of the second German priority application discloses annular convexity and concavity. Pet. 42–43; Prelim. Resp. 45–46; Prelim. Reply 4–5; Prelim. Sur-reply 4. At most, the parties identify a material issue of fact with respect to these two claim elements that is best resolved on a full trial record. 11 At first blush, Figure 17A appears to show means 2.4.2 under a portion of element 27 of the capsule. Ex. 1047, Fig. 17A; Prelim. Sur-reply 4 depicted in Figures 16–18, which rely on toothed rings physically interacting with either the chamber, retaining arms, or a pinion. Ex. 1047, 12:22–31, 13:8–18. The second German priority application explains that means 2.4.2 physically interacts with retaining arms 30 (embodiments of Figures 16 and 17) or a pinon (embodiment of Figure 18), and if means 2.4.2 were not present in these embodiments, the capsule would either “drop through into a waste container” or could not be inserted through the insertion shaft. Id. at 12:22–27, 13:9–12, 13:16–35 (noting that in the embodiment disclosed in Figure 18 a pinon interacts with means 2.4.2 and only when means 2.4.2 “is formed complementary to the teeth of the means” can the capsule be inserted). Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain how a barcode could replace means 2.4.2 in these embodiments and still retain the capsule within the device or allow the capsule to enter the insertion shaft.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“First, Yoakim expressly states that the capsule may use a “barcode,” and the plain and ordinary meaning of this term is a code that satisfies the construction adopted by the district court. To the extent Patent Owner has reason to believe that Yoakim does not apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “barcode,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this fact, it is encouraged to present such evidence during trial. Second, in this obviousness inquiry the question is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art is more likely to adopt a barcode or a bitcode, but whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to applying the “barcode” of Yoakim under the flange of the capsule. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Our case law is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it is a suitable option.’”). On that point, Jarisch expressly discloses the benefits of doing so. Ex. 1005 ¶ 22 (noting that applying the code at the bottom of the rim lowers the risk of the code becoming unreadable). As such, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently identifies where Yoakim discloses a barcode and explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have placed such a “barcode” on the bottom of the capsule’s flange.” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution of the ’430 patent and that Rossi and Castellani were mentioned in the inter partes reviews that were cited on the IDS. Pet. 19; Prelim. Resp. 23. We need not determine whether Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied based on these disclosures, however, as Part 2 of the analysis, which we address below, is dispositive. a) Factor (c)—the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for a rejection The Examiner did not issue any rejections during prosecution of the ’430 patent. Ex. 1002, 232–234. As the reasons for allowance, the Examiner stated: [A]llowance of claims 1 and 21–29 is indicated as none of the cited prior art discloses or suggests the flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side; a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity; and an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange, the identifier being a barcode, wherein the beverage machine, by reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector, is configured to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine, and only if the beverage machine determines that the single-serve capsule belongs to the group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine is the pump controlled to push the water into the single-serve capsule. Id. at 233. In arriving at this conclusion, the Examiner did not cite or discuss the disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, or Castellani. Id. at 232–234. Yet, these references appear, based on the current record, to expressly teach or allowance, including a “flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 197, Fig. 6); “a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 128–129, 197, 414); “an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 22) that is “a barcode” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 496, 525); and “reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector . . . to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 192, 477, 494–496, 525; Ex. 1005 ¶ 82; Ex. 1041, 3, 11). As such, to the extent the asserted combination of prior art references was evaluated during prosecution of the application that matured into the ’430 patent, we determine that such evaluation was minimal.” slip op. at 37
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“B. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that “[t]he parties have been embroiled in disputes involving substantive claims for infringement for both the ’430 Patent and the Jarisch 929 reference,” and “it is unnecessary to open up yet another front in this dispute.” Prelim. Resp. 68–69. As such, Patent Owner requests that we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id. Patent Owner directs our attention to no case in which the Director has exercised discretion to deny a petition merely because the same patent was the subject of a co-pending district court infringement action. Indeed, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) specifically contemplates such a scenario. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 40
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,230,430 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–16 of the ’923 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- 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). One may show support for the claims of a later application by showing that a single, earlier application provides written description support for the claims. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, MBH v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a patentee “cannot distinct previous applications”). Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“7. Analysis: Reasons to Combine the References Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yoakim, Jarisch and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/espresso machines.” Pet. 43. “Yoakim and Jarisch both improve the optimization of beverage parameters in a single-serve brewing system, and use optical codes read by the machine to achieve this.” Id. “Rapparini further improves the the wall of the capsule body like those used in Yoakim and Jarisch.” Id. at 43–44; see id. at 50–51, 53–54 (Petitioner’s further argument that Rapparini discloses “an optimized capsule structure that is stiffer and more stable” by virtue of radially spaced and vertically oriented ribs and grooves, where the vertically oriented grooves are free from extending entirely to the bottom region of the capsule). Petitioner directs us to additional evidence tending to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to modify Yoakim’s device, to include the code placement of Jarisch and the grooves and ribs of Rapparini, to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success. Id. at 44–48.” slip op. at 27
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,994,923
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.