- Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,333,007 - Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 18, 2025 · IPR2024-00630 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Koebler and obvious over Koebler alone and in combination with other references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 120). Section 112 requires, inter alia, that the specification contain a written description of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). In determining whether the written description requirement is met, we consider “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). This analysis requires “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Thus, “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. For example, the analysis must consider “the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “While a prior application need not contain precisely the same words as are found in the asserted claims, the prior application must indicate to a person skilled in the art that the inventor was ‘in possession’ of the invention as later claimed.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also Purdue Pharma LP v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.”). However, “it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession. And while the description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure . . . , a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352 (citations omitted); see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“While the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification. The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.”).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Initially, we note that, although Petitioner presents a definition for “traction” in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 10), Dr. Morellas agreed with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation during his deposition: Q. What would a person having ordinary skill in the art understand the word “traction” to mean? A. It would mean the grip that the -- that the tire has with the road. Q. So when the tire is gripping the road, the vehicle will have traction; correct? A. Correct. Q. But if the wheels are spinning freely and not gripping the road, the vehicle has no traction; correct? A.· Correct. Ex. 2031, 36:8–17. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation of “traction” to be a measure “of the friction between the vehicle’s drive wheels and the road surface” such that “a vehicle’s wheels have ‘traction’ when wheel rotation acts to propel the vehicle along the roadway” and “[t]he vehicle’s wheels lose ‘traction’ when they spin freely relative to the road and thus are no longer acting to propel the vehicle along the roadway.” See PO Resp. 27; see also Tr. 18:4–5 (Petitioner’s counsel stating that “the ultimate disposition doesn’t matter which definition [of ‘traction’ the Board] adopt[s]”).” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Anticipation “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). A reference inherently discloses an element of a claim “if that missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, 593 F.3d at 1332 (quoting Cont’l Can, 948 F.2d at 1269).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,850,616 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,850,616 - Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCInstitutedPTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Julia Heaney · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–17 and 22–28 and all asserted grounds, finding a sufficient likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “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) (2018). Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one claim challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Further, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion not to institute review. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther
“On this record, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed experience level of at least five years in measurement and analysis of coefficient of friction to be supported. As to the necessity of experience in textile engineering and fiber science, Patent Owner’s position, although not supported by declarant analysis of the factors listed above, is consistent with the disclosure of the ’854 patent, which describes features of a mesh layer in textile and fiber terms. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:17–11:14, 12:65–13:8, 14:20–24. On the whole, however, we do not discern on this record how specific experience in textile engineering and fiber science of a person of ordinary skill would materially alter the outcome at this stage of the proceeding. For purposes of this decision only, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, except for the requirement of five years of experience in measurement and analysis of coefficient of friction. The level of skill in the art remains an open issue in this proceeding. Further submissions by the parties may include argument and evidence that would assist in the resolution of this issue at the close of trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 10; Reply 1, 4. Patent Owner contends the terms “mesh layer” and “coefficient of friction” require construction. Prelim. Resp. 14–16; Sur-reply 2–5. We have considered the parties’ arguments and discuss them below with regard to each of the terms Patent Owner contends should be construed. Because our determination that Petitioner demonstrates at least one challenged claim meets the threshold for institution (see SAS Inst., 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60) is not based on construing the term “mesh layer” or “coefficient of friction,” we determine we need not construe either claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). As further discussed below, we invite the parties to address claim construction at trial.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the ’854 patent specification does not include clear and explicit lexicography or a disclaimer that would support requiring “coefficient of friction” to be determined by a specific ASTM test method. The portion of the specification Patent Owner asserts as a definition of “coefficient of friction” (see Ex. 1001, 11:31–42) is a description of an embodiment; we find it does not express patentee intent to redefine the term. Further, the statement that “the coefficient of friction … may be determined using the … ASTM D1894 standard test method” (id. at 11:32–35) indicates that use of that specific test method is optional. Accordingly, in the absence of patentee lexicography or disavowal, we do not limit the scope of the term “coefficient of friction” to require that it be measured by a specific ASTM standard. Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims.”); In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). We note that the ’854 patent specification sets forth a definition for the coefficient of friction between the surfaces of the mesh material and the slide surface. Ex. 1001, 4:38–46. As stated above, however, we do not expressly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. Should the parties address the construction of “coefficient of friction” at trial, we will make a determination after the close of evidence and any hearing.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · PGR2024-00049 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for PGR; the challenged claims were supported by the 2006 priority application.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006. 2. Conclusion: PGR Eligibility For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’202 patent has, or had, at least one claim having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, we determine that the ’202 patent is entitled to the filing date of the ’634 application (October 18, 2006), and, thus, the ’202 patent is not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, the ’202 patent consistently and repeatedly characterizes the invention as incorporating tobacco in some form and ties the stated benefits of the invention to the inclusion of tobacco. Moreover, the Specification is directed to smoking articles containing tobacco, all of the embodiments include tobacco, and “the present invention” is described as a smoking article, where the smoking article includes tobacco. Consequently, we determine that “smoking article” as it is used in the challenged claims is limited to devices that include tobacco. See Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding claimed “lip” is limited to “extrudable plastic materials” where specification states that “the device of the present invention is constructed of extrudable plastic materials” and “emphasizes the benefits of using extrudable plastics and describes them as benefits of the invention as a whole”); Poly-Am., L.P. v. described in the specification has inwardly extended short seals and every section of the specification indicates the importance of inwardly extended short seals. These two facts provide together a proper reason to limit the claims in this way.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.”).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s argument is dependent on accepting Petitioner’s assertion that the claims include a smoking article that does not contain tobacco, which we have not done. Instead, as set forth above, we construe “smoking article” as being limited to devices that include tobacco. See § II.B.2, supra. Based on our construction of “smoking article” and the evidence of record in this proceeding, we determine that the challenged claims are supported by the specification of the ’202 patent, which is identical to the specification of all of the continuations in the chain leading back to the October 18, 2006 that the specification of the ’202 patent and every patent in its priority chain “have identical specifications”); Prelim. Resp. 13 (noting that Petitioner does not identify other limitations in the challenged claims “allegedly lacking support in the ’202 patent family’s applications dating back to U.S. App. No. 11/550,634, filed on October 18, 2006”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,925,202 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 103 over Carr and Lauka, with additional references for the dependent-claim grounds, because the challenged claims lack priority support in the ’848 application.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Instacart submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–25). Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 19–23). But, as Consumeron’s expert acknowledges, Consumeron’s proposed definition “is not materially different” from Instacart’s. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 22. Accordingly, while we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Instacart our findings and analysis would be the same under Consumeron’s proposal.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“8 Consumeron argues Dr. Houh’s testimony should be given little weight because he “admitted he did not evaluate what the ’848 Application reasonably conveys to a skilled artisan.” Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2011, 74:8– 76:6, 83:4–84:1, 92:22–95:5). We disagree. Dr. Houh’s testimony indicates that he properly considered what the ’848 application reasonably conveys to a POSITA. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52, 56, 58, 61, 65. The portions of his cross-examination testimony cited by Consumeron do not suggest otherwise. For the reasons explained below, we credit Dr. Houh’s testimony over the competing interpretations offered by Consumeron and Dr. Mitzenmacher. 9 The dissent criticizes the majority’s analysis as “overly narrow” and too focused on the preferred embodiment. See Dissent 7–8. We disagree. Our analysis considers the entirety of the ’848 application, including all of the passages cited by Consumeron and the dissent.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“But it does not follow that an agent encountering a stock-out would necessarily respond according to the specific steps recited in claims 1 and 14.10 For example, instead of sending information about a replacement product, the agent could travel to another location to look for the same product, or notify the customer that the desired product could not be found and terminate the transaction. Because the ’848 application only contemplates scenarios where a product can be located, it does not describe the agent’s response in the event the identified product cannot be located or is unavailable, much less reasonably convey possession of a method comprising the specific, responsive steps in claims 1 and 14.11” slip op. at 17
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construed the terms “acquisition request” and “acquiring” in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR to encompass “not only a request for a delivery agent to shop for and purchase goods, but also a request for the agent to pick up or obtain pre-paid goods.” See 1357 IPR, Paper 35 at 11. It is undisputed that the ’465 patent at issue here and the ’835 patent at issue in the 1357 IPR are related and share essentially identical specifications, figures, and claim terms. See Pet. Reply 16; PO Resp. 38 n.6. Thus, for the same reasons as in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR, we likewise determine here that Instacart’s construction of “acquisition request” is the correct one. See SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents ‘derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.’” (quoting NTP, Inc., v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Consumeron provides no persuasive justification for us to depart from our prior reasoning in the related 1357 IPR.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,238,465 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,238,465 - Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · PGR2023-00031 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable over the asserted obviousness or indefiniteness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’869 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 16). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 33. Considering the subject matter of the ’869 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification of the ’869 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,409,869 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Carr and Lauka.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least claims 1 and 14 of the ’465 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Lauka. And because Instacart demonstrates that at least one claim of the ’465 patent meets the threshold for institution, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a),(c); SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of the ’465 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” Prelim. Resp. 29. Consumeron’s definition appears to overlap significantly with Instacart’s definition. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we adopt the level of skill in the art as articulated by Instacart.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“product ordered by the customer is available and does not contemplate a scenario where the product is unavailable or otherwise describe the action to be taken if the product is unavailable. See Pet. 17–22. We agree, at least based on the preliminary record. In particular, with reference to Figures 2 and 3, the ’848 parent application describes a method where (1) a customer chooses “a store where a desired product is being sold” (step 105), (2) the customer selects a delivery agent and sends an “acquisition request” to the delivery agent (steps 108, 109, 110), and (3) “the selected delivery agent travels to the store location . . . and finds the desired product to be acquired” (step 113). Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 17, 20, 23 (emphasis added). “The delivery agent then communicates to the customer that the product has been identified, and the customer has the option of inspecting the product in real-time” (step 117). Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). “Next, the customer either approves or rejects acquisition of the inspected product” (steps 119, 120, 122). Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis added). That description in the ’848 parent application clearly presumes that the product ordered by the customer has been located and is available for inspection, which is at odds with the additional requirements of claims 1 and 14 of “failing to locate an identified product” and “determining that the identified product is not available.” Ex. 1001, 11:20 (claim 1), 12:30 (claim 14) (emphases added). To the extent Consumeron argues otherwise, we are not persuaded at this preliminary stage. According to Consumeron, the customer’s rejection of the product means that “the agent fails to locate a product that is satisfactory.” See Prelim Resp. 11. But nowhere do we discern that the ’848 parent application hinges the identity and availability of a product on whether it is satisfactory to the customer. That a product might not meet a customer’s satisfaction does not negate the description in the ’848 parent application that the agent locates and identifies the product in the first instance before giving the customer the option to inspect and reject the product. Indeed, because the customer placed the online order with a store advertising the product, the presumption is that the advertised product is available and satisfactory to the customer.8 And, while conceivably the purchase of a product cannot be fulfilled in the event the product is unavailable, it would seem to be improper hindsight to derive written description support by “[w]orking backward from a knowledge of the claims.” Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, based on the preliminary record, the ’848 parent application does not provide sufficient written description for the terms noted above. As such, we find that Instacart demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“and Lauka. See Pet. 30–44, 47–49. We begin with Instacart’s challenge of method claim 1. Instacart provides a detailed mapping of how Carr satisfies all the recited limitations of claim 1, except limitation [1.0.3], for which Instacart points to Lauka. See id. at 35–44. In particular, Instacart cites the following evidence in support of its contentions that Carr and Lauka, when combined, teach or suggest each of the recited limitations of claim 1: Limitation 1.0.1—“A method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods through one or more agents of a service provider” (Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 39, 43, 45, 92, Figs. 1, 3, 6;; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 97–100)); Limitation 1.0.2—“each agent having a mobile agent system in communication with at least one remote server,” (Pet. 35–37 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 40–43, 53, Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–104)); Limitation 1.0.3—“with each mobile agent system including: a digital image capture device and a communication device, said method comprising:” (Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 74, 88, 94, 122; Ex. 1006, 3:19–28, 3:49–57, 4:10–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105– 109)); Limitation 1.1—“receiving, through the at least one remote server, a first acquisition request from a customer for a first set of one or more goods;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 60, 73, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–112)); Limitation 1.2—“contacting, through the communications device, the one or more agents;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57, 74; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–115)); Limitation 1.3—“upon failing to locate an identified product of the set of one or more goods, electronically transmitting information on a replacement product for the identified product of the set of one or more goods to the customer using the digital image capture device of the agent, including:” (Pet. 38–40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 95, 96, 105, 107, ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116– 119)); Limitation 1.4—“obtaining a bar or QR code of the replacement product;” (Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95, 107; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120– 122)); Limitation 1.5—“determining the information from the bar or QR code, wherein the information includes at least one image of the replacement product; and” (Pet. 40–42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95–96, 116; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 123–127)); Limitation 1.6—“sending the information for the customer to approve the purchase of the replacement product based on the information determined from the bar or QR code; and” (Pet. 42– 43 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51, 96–99, Fig. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128– 130)); and Limitation 1.7—“upon receiving approval of the purchase from the customer, acquiring the replacement product, via the agent.” (Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131–132)); Instacart also provides a reason why one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Carr and Lauka with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–96); see also id. at 37 (“In view of the teachings of Lauka, a POSITA would have recognized that it was obvious to implement the UPC scanner functionality of Carr’s handheld device using an ‘imaging device’ such as that taught by Lauka, which specifies that the ‘imaging device 206 can comprise a video or still camera’ and ‘can be used to capture images.’ Ex.1006, 3:49-57; Ex.1003, ¶¶105- 107.”).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,238,465 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · PGR2023-00008 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted post-grant review of claims 1–13 on all petitioned grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute post-grant review, we must determine that 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’624 patent is unpatentable. Thus, we institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“evaluated the subject matter of Riis during examination of the ’624 patent, we agree that Riis was before the Office, as discussed in connection with our analysis of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework, above. Examiner T presumably was aware of Riis by virtue of having initialed an IDS containing Riis in the ’624 patent’s application and also by virtue of having initialed an IDS containing Riis in the ’067 Application, but Examiner T did not apply Riis in connection with the examination of the ’624 patent. On this record, Patent Owner also fails to show that the claims of the child application leading to the ’624 patent are substantially similar to those of the parent ’814 patent in which Examiner S considered Riis, and, thus, consideration of Riis during the prosecution of the ’814 patent does not equate to consideration of Riis during the prosecution of the ’624 patent. Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (2) that Petitioner fails to sufficiently show how the Examiner erred in evaluating the prior art, we find Petitioner’s arguments demonstrate that Examiner T, the examiner of the ’624 patent, did not apply Riis (or Wypych or Tatarka) during the examination of the’624 patent. As Petitioner argues, the error lies in that “the Examiner failed to consider the relevance of Riis as it applied to the pending method claims,” because although “Riis was considered during examination of the parent ’999 application, Riis was not similarly considered during examination of the ’018 application which led to the ’624 patent.” Pet. 76–77. We determine that the circumstances here demonstrate that the Examiner erred in evaluating the prior art.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2) to deny institution, arguing that the Petition fails to identify every RPI. Prelim. Resp. 10–11, 56–60. Patent Owner argues that the Petition “should also have identified its parent corporation, Huhtamäki Oyj . . . as well as the related corporation Huhtamaki, Inc. . . . as RPIs to comply with the statutory requirements for a PGR.” Id. at 10. On this record, we determine that we need not address whether Huhtamäki Oyj and Huhtamaki, Inc. are unnamed RPIs because, even if they were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325. See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential); Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential) (Board’s jurisdiction to consider a petition does not require a “correct” identification of all RPIs in a petition); see also Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB July 18, 2017) (“evidence [of failure to identify all RPIs] is, at best, suggestive regarding an issue that is not jurisdictional”); Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f a petition fails to identify all real parties in interest . . . the Director can, and does, allow the petitioner to add a real party in interest.” (quoting Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1374 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc))). Here, notwithstanding the arguments devoted to the RPI issue in the Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, and Preliminary Sur-Reply, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted Huhtamäki Oyj or Huhtamaki, Inc. to gain some advantage. As Petitioner argues, the “RPI analysis is not necessary at institution, because Patent Owner has not alleged Petitioner would be time barred or otherwise estopped based on unnamed RPIs.” Prelim. Reply 5 (quoting SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18). As SharkNinja states, certain Board decisions go through extensive analysis to determine whether parties should have been named as RPIs, whereas other Board decisions determine that “such a lengthy exercise is unnecessary for the purposes of rendering a decision on institution of trial.” SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 19. Here, as in SharkNinja, we find the latter approach better serves the interest of cost and efficiency. Thus, at this time and on this record, we will not consider whether Huhtamäki Oyj or Huhtamaki, Inc. must be named as RPIs.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the invention “would have had a relevant technical degree in Chemical Engineering, Polymer Science, Materials Science, or the like, and 2–3 years of experience in laminate or film manufacture or similar packaging manufacture and that less experience may be necessary with additional education and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–72). In its 4 Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner appear to present any evidence directed to secondary considerations. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp.; Prelim. Reply; Prelim. Sur-Reply. Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the prior art and the ’624 patent. 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))).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,260,624 - LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · PGR2020-00054 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Final written decision
The sole claim was not shown unpatentable: it is definite, and neither asserted obviousness combination renders the design unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Designer of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“DOSA”) LKQ contends that: a designer of ordinary skill would be an individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design experience in the field of transportation design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in transportation or automotive design. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42; Ex. 1004 ¶ 41). Based on the final record, which includes testimony by LKQ’s witnesses, we adopt LKQ’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the final record, the purported issues related to a double line on the convex crease and the length of the single line do not create internally inconsistent drawings that would preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole. We have considered the testimony of each witness and we find Mr. Peters’ explanation most convincing that “the claimed design describes the convex band consistently because each of the figures presents at least one of the ways that a convex band can be represented. . . . Figure 1 illustrates the two intersecting lines of the convex band, while Figures 2-4 illustrate the single max height line of the convex band.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 58. Thus, we agree with GM that these figures are not inconsistent, but rather complementary because both connecting lines (as shown in Figure 1) and the max height line (as shown in Figure 2) are accurate depictions of the convex band of the claimed design. Further, GM has presented persuasive evidence that the varied length of the line between figures is also understandable depending on the point of reference of a particular figure. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 55, 56; Ex. 2006, 143:11–16, 144:4–7.” slip op. at 27
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“7. Overall Indefiniteness Analysis The figures of the ’065 patent are not perfect and the issues discussed above demonstrate that attention to detail matters when conveying the scope of a three-dimensional object in two dimensions. The proper standard for indefiniteness does not, however, require perfection, but instead requires that an invention is shown with “reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc., 572 U.S. at 910. The purpose of the definiteness standard is “to ensure that the disclosure is clear enough to give potential competitors (who are skilled in the art) notice of what design is claimed – and therefore what would be infringed.” Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376. Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we determine that the claimed design of the ’065 patent is reasonably understandable and gives potential competitors, and the public, notice of the scope of the claim. As analyzed above, LKQ has not shown that most of the alleged inconsistencies are, in fact, inconsistent features within the claim. Further, we determine that the inconsistencies argued by LKQ do not in the aggregate “preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole.” Id. at 1375–76.” slip op. at 45
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The Petition fails to adequately address the differences between the claimed ornamental fender design and the Fiat Toro in several important areas, including: the distinct upper portions of each design, the claimed design’s inwardly folded (L-shaped) top edge, and the rear lateral edge. Based on the final record, these differences combined with the other differences noted by LKQ (Pet. 81) are substantial and prevent the Fiat Toro from having design characteristics that are basically the same as that claimed in the ’065 patent – as required for a Rosen reference.” slip op. at 67
Patent outcomesUS D864,065 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
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.