- PTAB · Jan 14, 2026 · PGR2025-00059 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted post-grant review of claims 1–4 on all four asserted grounds, finding a sufficient preliminary showing of obviousness and lack of enablement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“V. CONCLUSION Petitioner has, at this stage, established that it will more likely than not prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. This determination is, however, based on a preliminary record and is not final on any issues of patentability. We will make a final determination on the patentability of the challenged claims, as necessary and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, based on a fully developed record through trial. VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) post grant review of claims 1–4 of the ’233 patent is hereby instituted on the grounds set forth in the Petition, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and” slip op. at 40
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not proffer a description of a POSA. See generally, Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this decision, on the record at this time, we find that Petitioner’s definition appears consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art references of record, and apply it herein. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We invite the parties to further address the definition of a POSA during trial should they find it necessary.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In addition, the opinion stated in the Pomper Declaration that “the term of ‘low molecular weight’ is well accepted in the chemical arts” and the declarant “recognize[s] that low molecular weight compounds would have a molecular weight of typically from about 50 Daltons to about 1,500 Daltons” is offered by a co-inventor. We, as factfinder, have discretion to weigh the credibility of expert witnesses and to give each item of evidence such weight as appropriate. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). In this case, we find that the published references on metabolites do not support the opinion. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1368 (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”) US-121, of which Dr. Pomper is lead inventor, also uses the term “low molecular weight”—without further characterization of the term—and is uninformative as to the meaning of the term. See Ex. 1006, ¶ 12. In addition, Patent Owner’s definition does not appear to apply to all compounds claimed in US-121.5” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“limited to Patent Owner’s proposed “from about 50 Daltons to about 1,500 Daltons.” The cited evidence relied on in the Pomper Declaration to define “low molecular weight” as a term well accepted in the chemical arts relates to metabolomics and metabolites. See Ex. 1002, 169, (specifically, ¶ 17 of Dr. Pomper’s declaration). Patent Owner admits that Dr. Pomper’s testimony is about molecules that differ from the claimed imaging and radiotherapeutic agents targeting FAP-α, but argues that the testimony is still relevant for purposes of explanation. Prelim Resp. 21. While it may be relevant, the testimony is not persuasive in light of the Specification. We find the uncontested fact that several of the B moieties alone—without the A moiety or L linker—specifically identified in the ’233 patent fall outside of Patent Owner’s proposed definition persuasive, as we normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes examples disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (rejecting proposed claim interpretation that would exclude disclosed examples in the specification). The cases cited by Patent Owner supporting that a claim term may be construed to exclude embodiments where the prosecution history supports such construction are factually distinguishable from the instant case as they regard instances of specific prosecution history disclaimer, clear prosecution disavowal, or relate to a specific definition of the terms in the Specification for the term being construed. Here, “low molecular weight” is not defined in the Specification, but, as Petitioner argues (see Pet. 21–25) is characterized as “demonstrat[ing] faster pharmacokinetics and a higher specific signal within clinically convenient times after administration” and that it “can be synthesized in radiolabeled form more easily.” Ex.1001, 13:33–50, 14:56– 16:14, 17:9–20. We are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Zeglis, Petitioner’s declarant, that compounds weighing over 1500 Da may share those same behaviors, along with certain identified B moieties disclosed as embodiments. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 83.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,115,233 - Apple Inc. v. Paul PoniatowskiAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00731 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Wang, Dua, and Yong.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with one to two years of experience in the field of mobile transactions.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–37). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 2 US Patent App. Pub. No. US 2002/0023215 A1 (Ex. 1004). 3 US Patent App. Pub. No. US 2006/0165060 A1 (Ex. 1005). 4 Korean Unexamined Patent App. Pub. No. 10-2007-0063899 (Ex. 1006). Petitioner submits Yong’s Korean-language patent application and a certified translation of the same. See id. We refer to the English-language translation of Yong. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, as it is supported by Dr. Bederson’s testimony and appears consistent with the ’578 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (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)); Ex. 1003 ¶ 36.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“We agree with Petitioner that nothing in the claim language or the Specification requires that the claimed optical input receive information concerning the prices of goods directly from the goods themselves. Patent Owner does not explicitly address the claim construction of this term. See PO Resp. Patent Owner, however, does assert that “it would be logical for those skilled in [the] art to apply any available technology to further modify and improve the shopping experience by taking a scan/pic of the products bar codes, instead of entering them manually.” Id. at 2–3. This assertion is not inconsistent with a finding that the scanned bar code information may be received indirectly. Accordingly, on this record, we construe the term “receiving information concerning the prices of goods” to encompass receiving pricing information from a server.” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the Priority Applications do not disclose the optical input and network hub limitations or their equivalent. As Petitioner argues, “disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) (“It is not sufficient…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”). Reply 4. Accordingly, for the purposes of determining eligible prior art for this Decision, we rely on the ’578 patent’s application filing date of October 19, 2009.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner arguments that the cited references are analogous art. Our reviewing court has stated that “[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotes omitted). While these two criteria are helpful in many instances, we must not lose sight of the key question at hand: what is “prior art” as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)? References that are “too remote to be treated as ‘prior art’” are excluded from the obviousness analysis. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741, 226 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The non-analogous art test provides helpful insight on the underlying question of what is “prior art” within the meaning of the statute; we should not, however, be blind to the reality of the circumstances of the case before us. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA (1979). Nor should we adhere to rigid and mandatory formulas that overly limit the inquiry. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Focusing on the first of the two tests above, the test for analogous art “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. We thus consider all explanations of the inventors’ subject matter while keeping in mind that prior art is analogous when it “is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed. . . .” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1320 (emphasis added). Thus, “field of endeavor” should not be defined narrowly based only upon the specific problem addressed.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,270,578 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,270,578 - Reolink Innovation Inc. / Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co., Ltd. v. Throughtek Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00509 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Throughtek-2012 and the Lorex Video; claims 1–3, 6, 10, 12–14, 17, and 18 are also unpatentable under two other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Bims, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’842 patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of work experience with network and communication technologies. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 15–16). Patent Owner does not provide any proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’842 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts “no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 55; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 701 Fed. Appx. 946, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Petitioner states “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1303; 37 C.F.R. §42.100). Patent Owner presents no proposed claim constructions. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[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 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS RE47,842 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01602 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 8–10 are anticipated by Weiman, and claims 4–7 and 11–14 are obvious over Weiman and Mozeleski; the revised motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 (Drewry Decl.) ¶¶ 76–79). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See generally Response. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find persuasive, and credit, Mr. Drewry’s testimony that (1) a POSITA would have appreciated that the proposed modification to replace Weiman’s screw/socket with Waugh’s angled version provides benefits including “avoiding selected muscular and abdominal anatomical structures,” and (2) such “benefits would have been desirable for certain applications, such as those where the patient’s anatomy dictates that OLIF would provide the patient with the best medical outcome.” Ex. 1044 (Drewry Second Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 23–26; see also Ex. 1043 (Waugh), ¶¶ 54, 87–90 (describing use of angled screw holes to, e.g., “receive a fastener via a surgical pathway” and configured “to penetrate endplate tissue of a vertebral body”). We find the weight of evidence supports Petitioner’s articulation of a POSITA’s understanding of how to use angles to avoid anatomical features” slip op. at 61
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that no terms require construction “because they are shown to be anticipated and/or obvious regardless of construction.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner did not propose any terms for construction. See generally Response. We determine that no claim terms require express construction to render this Decision.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“j. Conclusion on Claim 1 For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Weiman discloses each and every limitation of claim 1, and therefore anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,956,087 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,956,087 - Motorola Mobility LLC v. Largan Precision Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 3, 2024 · IPR2022-01156 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–16, 18–24, 28, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Chen-069, which is prior art because the 2012 application lacks written-description support for their full scope.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’948 patent would have had “(i) a Bachelor’s degree in Physics, Optical Sciences, or equivalent education or training, as well as (ii) approximately three years of experience in designing multi-lens optical systems.” Id. at 12 (quoting Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28)). We also found that “[l]ack of work experience could have been offset by additional education, and vice versa,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood the fundamentals of optical aberration theory, and understood and used standard techniques for making lenses cheaper and more effective, especially for lens systems used in mobile devices.” Id. (quoting Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28, 30). We also agreed with Petitioner and found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have known how to use lens design software such as Code V, Oslo, and ZEMAX, and would have taken a lens design course or had equivalent training.” Id. (quoting Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). We also agreed with Petitioner and found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have regularly used such software to create new lens designs, often using pre-existing lens designs as a starting point and then performing routine optimizations to reach a desired design.” Id. at 12–13 (quoting Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’948 patent or identify any shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See PO Resp. 16–17. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’948 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that construing the challenged “claims to include first and second lens elements having the same refractive power . . . is improper.” PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art “would construe the [’]948 [p]atent claims to include first and second lens elements in the form of a ‘doublet,’ which requires the respective lens elements to have opposite refractive power, and thus includes only configurations” of “positive-negative” and “negative-positive” for the first and second lens elements, respectively. Id. at 20–21. In other words, “[t]he proper construction of the ’948 [p]atent claims is that the first and second lens elements may have positive-negative or negative-po[sitive] refractive powers, but would not include first and second lens elements having the same refractive polarity,” according to Patent Owner. Id. at 26. Thus, the parties agree that the challenged claims should be construed to encompass at least a lens system having a first lens element with a negative refractive power and a second lens element with a positive refractive power. See, e.g., Pet. 33; PO Resp. 21. We conclude that such a lens system is consistent with the plain language of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 12:8–26, 13:14–38, 14:16–46 (reciting first and second lens elements without reciting a specific refractive power polarity for the independent claims). And we determine that no claim terms require further construction in light of our findings below. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we determine that the 2012 application does not provide written description support for an imaging lens system with a negative refractive power first lens and a positive refractive power second lens. And the agreed scope of the challenged claims includes such a configuration, and thus, the written description of the 2012 application does not support the full breadth of the challenged claims. We therefore determine that the challenged claims of the ʼ948 patent do not benefit from the priority date of the 2012 application. Therefore, we determine that Chen-069 is prior art to the challenged claims of the ʼ948 patent.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which are not addressed by Patent Owner (see generally PO Resp.), we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Chen-069 anticipates claim 1. D. Remaining Challenged Claims Petitioner argues that Chen-069 discloses the limitations recited in claims 2–4, 6–16, 18–24, 28, and 29. Pet. 48–65. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s arguments directed to these claims. See generally PO Resp. 32–34. Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Chen-069 anticipates claims 2–4, 6–16, 18–24, 28, and 29.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,784,948 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,784,948 - Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00972 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable because Speight anticipates them; the Board found Peisa anticipation and Peisa–Heo obviousness unproven for the challenged claims in those grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contention or propose a level of skill. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“agreement that this claim term should be read as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.” Dec. 11. The parties do not challenge this construction in the Patent Owner Response, Reply, or Sur-reply. On the complete record, we construe “wherein resources are allocated for data of each channel having a second parameter above zero prior to another channel’s data for transmission having a third parameter less than or equal to zero” as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.”” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition is required to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner argued in the Petition that “as properly construed, the claimed ‘first parameter,’ ‘second parameter,’ ‘third parameter,’ and ‘fourth parameter’ are four different parameters.” Pet. 17–18. In the Institution Decision, Petitioner prevailed on that point and “we agree[d] with Petitioner that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels.” Dec. 14. Patent Owner “relie[d] on the Board’s construction ‘that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels,’” and proposed distinct parameters in the Specification that it alleges are examples of second and third parameters, albeit not the same two parameters proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 9, 29. Petitioner now proposes new constructions for the second and third parameters that would limit those parameters to the two examples it advanced in the Petition and improperly supports these new constructions with new expert testimony and an exhibit from the prosecution of a later patent. Reply 20–25; Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29; Ex. 1038. See also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”)10 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). As Patent Owner observes (Sur-reply 10 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 21), it has no opportunity to introduce rebuttal evidence contesting the new constructions. See TPG 73–74 (Nov. 2019) (“The sur-reply may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the crossexamination of any reply witness. Sur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony.”). We agree with Patent Owner that it would be unfair to consider Petitioner’s new construction. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”). Thus, Petitioner has forfeited its new claim construction arguments and they will not be considered. See TPG 74 (“While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.”). Moreover, these arguments would be unpersuasive even if considered. Petitioner has, at most, cited description in the Specification to show that its identified second and third parameters are examples corresponding to the recited second and third parameters. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 84–95. This description does not define the second and third parameters nor purport to exclude from the claims any parameter that would otherwise meet the language of the claims. The prosecution history to which Petitioner cites, that of a child application, took place after the prosecution of the ’466 patent and thus, does not constitute a definition or disclaimer of subject matter for claims of the ’466 patent. In any case, the brief argument in the cited response to office action, that “[i]n the algorithm, the first value is provided by the wireless network for each of a plurality of buffers where the buffer having the second value above a threshold transmits data first,” does not define the second and third parameters, disavow any values from those parameters, or even discuss the third parameter. Ex. 1038, 12. Petitioner’s extrinsic evidence, Dr. Akl’s testimony, does little more than repeat the arguments in the Reply and, thus, is of little value. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29. In sum, we maintain our construction that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels. Under this construction, RAAUq” and RAAUq’, respectively, could potentially be second and third parameters, as could RAAUq’ and RAAUq”, respectively, as long as they satisfy the rest of the pertinent language of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“production, we still would find that a skilled artisan would not have been able to ascertain from the disclosure in the ’421 application that RAAUq’ could take values less than zero. Instead, even if we were to credit Dr. Lomp’s testimony, to conclude that RAAUq’ can take negative values, a skilled artisan would need to program computer software to simulate the ’421 application’s algorithm and correctly choose starting parameters and other context variables without guidance from the description in the ’421 application. This case is similar to that in New Railhead, where the written description was insufficient because “one of ordinary skill in the art must first make the patented invention before he can ascertain the claimed features of that invention.” 298 F.3d at 1295. This case also is similar to Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, in which an application’s written description was insufficient because assumptions and starting variables were not knowable from the disclosure in the application. 849 F.3d at 1058. Thus, even if we were to conclude that Patent Owner has met its burden of production, a preponderance of the evidence shows that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for Alternative A. In sum, we conclude that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for the challenged claims and that, therefore, Speight is prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,681,466 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,681,466 - PTAB · Oct 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00040 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 1–17 and denied substitute claims 18–30 for lack of written-description support; it did not reach the remaining grounds against the substitute claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“For the reasons discussed below, on the full trial record, we find that Patent Owner has not carried its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed substitute claims introduce no new matter relative to the original disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(d)(1); see also Paper 58, 2 (Patent Owner acknowledging that it “bears the burden to meet the regulatory and statutory requirements” for a motion to amend, including demonstrating that the substitute claims do not “introduce new matter”). Importantly, we note that Patent Owner fails to explain how the material cited in the claim chart supports the claims. See Mot. 15–16. Instead, Patent Owner provides only a claim chart with bare citations, leaving it to the panel to discern how the cited material supports the claim limitations. See id. Patent Owner’s failure to explain the citations constitutes a fatal error, as we have reviewed the passages cited by Patent Owner and are unable to discern where support is found for several of the substitute claim limitations. Where, as here, “the Board is unable to determine how the specification and drawings support the proposed substitute claims, the motion to amend may be denied.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“TPG”),6 71.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuades us that the ’418 Application lacks adequate written description support for the formulation limitations of proposed substitute claim 18 [limitations 18a–8c]. As outlined by Petitioner and its declarants, the ’418 Application, including the Abstract, Field of the Invention, Summary of the Invention, and Detailed Description of the Invention sections, uniformly focuses on phosphate prodrugs of levodopa and carbidopa. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 (Sloan Decl.) ¶¶ 38–55, 64–69; Ex. 1003 (LeWitt Decl.) ¶¶ 89–97; Ex. 1047 (Forrest Decl.) ¶¶ 40–74, 80–92; Opp. 6– 10; Pet. 23–26, 49–55. We agree with Petitioner that “nothing in the specification suggests that the invention includes methods of subcutaneous infusion with anything other than the carbidopa prodrugs and L-dopa prodrugs of Formulas (I) and (II), respectively, or teaches how to get sufficient amounts of either L-dopa or carbidopa into solution, or achieve particular L-dopa plasma levels, without those particular prodrugs.” Pet. 27. Petitioner persuades us that the ’418 Application fails to contain “[so] much as a single generic sentence, anywhere in the application, suggesting the inventors possessed the claimed formulations.” Sur-reply 3. Additionally, the ’418 Application contains no example teaching administration of an aqueous formulation comprising carbidopa itself with levodopa itself or one of the three claimed levodopa prodrugs, let alone one that is suitable for continuous subcutaneous administration. See Ex. 1047 (Forrest Decl.) ¶¶ 61–72, 82–92. Patent Owner is correct that to establish written description support, neither “an actual reduction to practice,” nor a verbatim recitation of the claims is required. Sur-reply 4. Nevertheless, “[a]lthough examples are not always required to satisfy the written description requirement, the lack of any disclosure of examples may be considered when determining whether the claimed invention is adequately described.” Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the lack of an actual reduction to practice or verbatim description of a formulation that falls within the scope of the claims is relevant, because we also see no other description or material in the ’418 Application that suggests the claimed methods extend to continuous subcutaneous administration of a composition comprising levodopa or one of the three claimed levodopa prodrugs, together with carbidopa, in an aqueous carrier.” slip op. at 28
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“All of the exhibits that are the subject of Patent Owner’s motion to exclude relate to the prior-art status and/or authenticity of Yacoby-Zeevi and ancillary related documents underlying Petitioner’s prior art-based challenges to the proposed substitute claims. See generally MTE. Because we deny Patent Owner’s request to enter proposed substitute claims 18–30 based on lack of written description support and do not reach Petitioner’s prior-art based challenges to the patentability of these claims, we do not rely on Exhibits 1005, 1007, 1040–1044, 1046, or 1048–1050 in this Decision. Accordingly we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 49
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“On the other hand, Petitioner shows that Patent Owner took positions in its Motion to Amend that it only later sought to support with technical declarations. For example, in the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner elected to assert “that levodopa and carbidopa could be ‘interchanged’ in a formulation with their prodrugs, and that a skilled artisan could ‘perform a pharmacokinetic analysis to predict steady state levodopa plasma levels’ using the ‘parent compounds’ based on Example 24.” MTS 2 (citing Mot. 12–13). Patent Owner, however, “chose to forgo any expert support” on these issues at the time it filed its Motion to Amend, and instead waited until the Reply to submit technical declarations in support of these arguments. Id. We agree with Petitioner that although Patent Owner “was not required to anticipate the arguments that [Petitioner] would make in its Opposition” to the Motion to Amend, if Patent Owner “wanted to provide expert testimony to support the positions it actually took” in that Motion, “the TPG required [Patent Owner] to do so at that time, instead of waiting until [Petitioner] had limited ability to respond.” Id. at 5. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that in this respect at least some portions of Patent Owner’s Declarations are untimely, because it is “improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.” TPG 74. Nevertheless, an order striking arguments and evidence in their entirety is an “exceptional remedy,” particularly under the circumstances here, where some portions of the Declarations are proper, while other portions are untimely. TPG 80. Moreover, “there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012- 00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014). Under the facts of this case, Patent Owner was permitted to file evidence to respond to Petitioner’s unpatentability claims, but also belatedly supported positions it made in earlier attorney argument. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike, however, challenges all of Patent Owner’s evidence, without acknowledging that some portions constitute proper reply. Although “[t]he Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply” (TPG 74, emphasis added), under the circumstances here, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s lack of specificity as to what it seeks to strike is fatal to Petitioner’s motion. Accordingly, we decline to strike the Declarations in their entirety as untimely.” slip op. at 46
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,091,507 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2023 · PGR2023-00022 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–33 under all petition grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one claim lacks written description and enablement.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the information presented, we agree with Patent Owner that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). We do not find it necessary to define the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention at this time. However, for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we find that Dr. Silverstone is qualified to provide helpful opinion testimony on the issues regarding which we cite his testimony in this decision. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–15.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Based on the above, we agree with Patent Owner that many of the arguments raised by the Examiner are highly similar to the challenges in this proceeding, particularly the written description challenge. However, some arguments differ. For instance, Petitioner’s enablement argument identifies that, contrary to Applicant’s statement during prosecution reproduced above, amino acids and protein structure outside the disclosed AAD-12 motif can also affect the activity of the claimed dioxygenases to degrade phenoxy auxin and pyridyloxy auxin. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–50, 79 (Dr. Silverstone describing the mechanics of protein binding and explaining why the ’055 patent disclosure fails to provide sufficient information to the skilled artisan to know which amino acids could be changed while retaining the ability to enzymatically degrade both phenoxy and pyridyloxy auxin herbicides). See also Pet. 27–34 (asserting, e.g., 85% homology to AAD-12 motif alone is insufficient to predict enzymatic degradation activity). While the Examiner’s rejections regarded the disclosure corresponding to the ability to degrade herbicides, the Examiner plainly relied on Applicant’s statements that the AAD-12 motif’s structure alone was responsible when deciding to withdraw the rejection. Ex. 1002, 355. The Examiner did not have the additional testimony supplied by the Silverstone declaration explaining otherwise. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–50, 79. Petitioner, through Dr. Silverstone, also addresses the effort the skilled artisan would have needed to undertake to determine what proteins outside of the AAD-12 motif would affect the ability of homologues to enzymatically degrade the recited herbicides, and provides evidence for consideration regarding the lack of a clear link between the AAD-12 motif and the ability to enzymatically degrade both phenoxy and pyridyloxy auxin herbicides. Ex. 1003, 347. Therefore, the arguments are not entirely overlapping. And while these issues do in part overlap with Petitioner’s arguments pertaining to enablement, we agree with Petitioner that the Examiner did not complete a written Wands analysis. Although we conclude that the arguments are not entirely overlapping, we proceed to the second step in the analysis, for completeness.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Because Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that Petitioner will prevail in showing that at least one claim lacks sufficient written description and is not enabled, we conclude the challenged claims are eligible for post-grant review. V. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presently before us, we determine Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’055 patent lacks written description and is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review. VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review of claims 1–33 of the ’055 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 57
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“85% identity as “highly identical” in this field and that the “conserved motif residues comprise ‘the active site that is essential for catalytic activity.’” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:1–6)). However, on the record before us, we are unpersuaded that this is sufficient because the Specification lacks disclosure supporting that a polypeptide of, for example, 86% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 would retain the ability to degrade herbicides if the 5 amino acids in the general formula of HX109D(X)111-134 T(X)136-261H(X)263-272R, and the required chain lengths are present. In this regard we are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Silverstone (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–93) regarding the limitations of the disclosure of the ’055 patent and the lack of information supporting the skilled artisan in understanding that the inventor possessed the entire claimed genus (e.g., lack of example at lower end of sequence identity and lack of information to assist the skilled artisan in predicting whether an α-ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenase would interact with or degrade either phenoxy auxin herbicides and/or pyridyloxy auxin herbicides). Dr. Silverstone testifies, and we are persuaded on this record, that the skilled artisan would not have read the guidance in the disclosure and understood that the inventors possessed the ability to design a modified SEQ ID NO: 2 at the 85% identity level that retained the function of degrading the recited herbicides, let alone the full scope of the claimed genus. Id. Patent Owner argues that Dr. Silverstone’s testimony that conserved amino acids of the AAD-12 motif are present in other α- ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenases but do not have the claimed dual activity (Ex. 1003 ¶ 48) is misplaced because it “ignores that the location and spacing of those residues in other αKG-dependent dioxygenases differ from those in the AAD-12 motif.” Prelim. Resp. 38. However, Patent Owner offers no evidence that supports its argument. Id. It is thus unpersuasive.” slip op. at 36
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,371,055 - PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2022-01406 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 under all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Google would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any preliminary response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims and grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“declarant Dr. Madisetti, that McCarthy does not provide written description support for the ’005 claims. McCarthy makes no mention of virtual machines and there is nothing in McCarthy that would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants had in mind the use of virtual machines as an embodiment of their invention. Our determination is informed by our interpretation, discussed in Section III.C above, that “virtual machine” encompasses software that mimics or emulates at least the basic functionality of a computer processor, but that merely virtualizing a resource such as memory or I/O devices does not create a virtual machine. Patent Owner’s attorney arguments are unpersuasive as citing irrelevant examples of virtual machines that interact with physical resources such as a host computer, memory or I/O devices, but which nevertheless mimic or emulate at least the basic functionality of a computer processor, unlike the partitions of McCarthy, which physically contain computer processors. McCarthy narrowly describes physical partitions, which do not mimic or emulate a computer processor and are not virtual machines. We understand that the statement in McCarthy that the “present invention” may be “implemented in software” (at paragraph 57 of McCarthy) merely refers to the fact that such components as the PLM, WLM, and performance monitor are software modules running on physical processors. We also agree with Petitioner that the reference to virtual partitions in McCarthy refers to the possibility that a partition hardware can be located in more than one computer, and has nothing to do with the use of virtual machines. Reply 2. Nor are we persuaded that the possibility of more than one partition residing in a single computer means that the partitions must be virtual, given that multiple processors can be in a single computer and a single processor can be partitioned by physically allocating its resources to multiple processes. Ex. 1013, Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶¶ 4, 8. As Petitioner argues, the ’005 patent explicitly distinguishes virtual machines from partitions as two separate species of the computer domain genus: Although some representative embodiments have been described in terms of allocating physical resources between partitions, representative embodiments may allocate resources between any suitable computing domain. Another suitable computing domain is a virtual machine. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:37–41). Unlike the ’005 patent, McCarthy confines its disclosure to partitions, and makes no mention of a computer domains genus or a virtual machines species. Accordingly, we determine, on the current record and for purposes of this decision, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that McCarthy is prior art to the ’005 patent claims.6” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“declarant Dr. Madisetti, that McCarthy does not provide written description support for the ’005 claims. McCarthy makes no mention of virtual machines and there is nothing in McCarthy that would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants had in mind the use of virtual machines as an embodiment of their invention. Our determination is informed by our interpretation, discussed in Section III.C above, that “virtual machine” encompasses software that mimics or emulates at least the basic functionality of a computer processor, but that merely virtualizing a resource such as memory or I/O devices does not create a virtual machine. Patent Owner’s attorney arguments are unpersuasive as citing irrelevant examples of virtual machines that interact with physical resources such as a host computer, memory or I/O devices, but which nevertheless mimic or emulate at least the basic functionality of a computer processor, unlike the partitions of McCarthy, which physically contain computer processors. McCarthy narrowly describes physical partitions, which do not mimic or emulate a computer processor and are not virtual machines. We understand that the statement in McCarthy that the “present invention” may be “implemented in software” (at paragraph 57 of McCarthy) merely refers to the fact that such components as the PLM, WLM, and performance monitor are software modules running on physical processors. We also agree with Petitioner that the reference to virtual partitions in McCarthy refers to the possibility that a partition hardware can be located in more than one computer, and has nothing to do with the use of virtual machines. Reply 2. Nor are we persuaded that the possibility of more than one partition residing in a single computer means that the partitions must be virtual, given that multiple processors can be in a single computer and a single processor can be partitioned by physically allocating its resources to multiple processes. Ex. 1013, Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶¶ 4, 8.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“onto Modern System Architectures,” is a paper presented at the “UniForum 1992 Conference Proceedings” in January, 1992. Ex. 1014, Ex. A. Petitioner presents evidence and argument directed to the public availability of Gien as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art to the ’005 patent. Pet. 24– 25 (citing Ex. 1014, Statutory Declaration of Anthony William Corsini & Ex. A). Patent Owner argues that the Corsini declaration, and Gien, are inadmissible “for lack of a perjury and warning statement.” Prelim. Rep. 13 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 28 U.S.C. § 1746; 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.68, 42.2). However, the declaration is made in London pursuant to the United Kingdom Statutory Declarations Act 1835. In addition, the Declaration of James L. Mullins supports a finding of public accessibly of Gien. Ex. 1029. At this stage, we accord Gien prior art status.9 9 Although we do not address at this stage whether additional evidence on this issue would be called for, we note that under similar circumstances supplemental declarations have been allowed. Hulu v. Sound View Innovations, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019): “[I]f the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.2 (affidavit), 42.23.”” slip op. at 26
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,748,005 - PTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2022-01172 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6, and 9 on both grounds: anticipation by Chen359 and obviousness over Tanaka and Bareau.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Turning to the first part of the framework, there is no dispute that, although Chen359 is an ancestor to the ʼ397 patent, it was not previously presented to the Office in the context of determining patentability of the claims of the ʼ397 patent. Instead, Patent Owner argues that the Examiner issued the challenged claims without finding that they lack written description support from the Specification of the ’397 patent, and therefore, implicitly, also from the 2011 application. Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 1002, 1213–17). A review of the prosecution history of the ’397 patent, however, shows that there were no arguments raised regarding written description support or whether any of the prior applications in the chain constituted prior art to the ʼ397 patent. Nor were there any arguments otherwise calling into question the priority date of the ʼ397 patent. And there certainly were no arguments made that Chen359 was prior art to the ʼ397 patent. The Examiner, therefore, did not analyze written description support in relation to these prior applications. We therefore conclude that, as to the first ground, the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Because we determine that the facts do not satisfy the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we need not address the second part of the framework.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Notably, Petitioner argues that “Sunny is not time-barred” from filing a Petition challenging the ʼ397 patent (Prelim. Reply 1) and Patent Owner does not dispute this contention. We thus find that for purposes of institution, we need not address whether Sunny is an unnamed real party-ininterest “because, even if it were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential); see also Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc., IPR2017-01391, Paper 8 at 3–6 (PTAB Nov. 28, 2017) (holding that the Board will not address the argument for purposes of institution that a litigation co-defendant should be a named a real party-ininterest in the absence of an allegation that the co-defendant would be time barred under section 315(b)). We find that this “approach better serves the interest of cost and efficiency.” SharkNinja, Paper 11 at 20; 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s arguments concerning Sunny not being named as a real party-in-interest do not form a basis to deny institution under our circumstances.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“V. CONCLUSION Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’397 patent. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims. VI. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6, and 9 of the ’397 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition; and FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(b), inter partes review of the ’397 patent shall commence on the entry date of this Order, and notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.” slip op. at 40
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In order to determine whether the 2011 application provides written description support for the claims of the ʼ397 patent, we look to see whether the specification of the 2011 application “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter [of the challenged claims] as of the filing date [of the 2011 application].” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). “[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ‘ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.’” Id. at 1353–54 (quoting University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Thus, whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the comparison of the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether the inventor has demonstrated possession of the claimed invention. First, we look to the claims to determine their scope. Here we agree with Petitioner that independent claim 1 of the ʼ397 patent does not limit the first lens element to having a particular refractive power. The plain language of claim 1 recites “a first lens element” without specifying the lens as having a specific refractive power or any other configuration or characteristic. Ex. 1001, 31:65. Thus, we determine that the scope of claim 1 encompasses a first lens having either a positive or negative refractive power. Next, we look at the written description of the 2011 application. The Summary of the Invention section of the 2011 application repeatedly describes the invention as having “a first lens element with positive refractive power.” Ex. 1005, 2:10–11; see 2:22–23 (“the first lens element with a positive refractive power”); 3:9–11 (“the first lens element with the positive power provides partial refractive power needed by the optical imaging system and reduces the total optical length.”). The Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments likewise describes a “first lens element 110 with a positive refractive power.” Id. at 7:13. Each of the eight embodiments and associated figures show the first lens as having a positive refractive power. Id. at 18:2, 21:2, 24:2, 27:2, 30:2, 33:2, 36:2, Tables 1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 4-2, 5-2, 6-2, 7-2, 8-2, Figs. 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,564,397
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.