- 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 - 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 - 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 - Apple Inc. v. Paul PoniatowskiInstitutedPTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00731 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 based on a reasonable likelihood that Wang, Dua, and Yong render them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and 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 that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 of the ’578 patent on the sole ground of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- 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 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 35–37). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Id. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept this 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” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“scanner, reader, or camera” that is aimed at a barcode or special code of a product, the price of which is then added to the retail bill. Pet. 10–11 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45–49, 9:5–11). According to Petitioner, the Specification does not elaborate further on the meaning of the term “information concerning prices of goods.” Id. at 11. Petitioner, thus, interprets the term to encompass scenarios in which price information is received directly or indirectly. Id. Petitioner notes that during prosecution of the ’578 patent, the Examiner rejected this limitation over prior art, stating that prior art “sends the scanned bar code information to the server,” which “then preferably returns a description of the item and information,” and “[t]his item description and price information is displayed on the telephone’s display.” Id. at 12 (quoting Ex. 1002, 231). According to Petitioner, this is an example of indirectly receiving information concerning the prices of goods as it comes from a queried server, not from the item itself. Id. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner never disputed, and in fact, made statements supporting that these actions were encompassed by the claim limitation. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 214). 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. Thus, on this record, we preliminarily 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)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In an inter partes review, the burden is on the petitioner to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). With respect to entitlement to any earlier effective filing date, however, a patent owner is not presumed to be entitled to the earlier filing dates of ancestral applications that do not share the same disclosure, such as in a continuation-in-part situation. See PowerOasis, Inc. v. T–Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed.Cir.2008) (stating that once a defendant establishes that a reference is § 102(b) prior art, burden is on patent owner to come forward with evidence proving priority to an earlier filing date).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,270,578 - United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2023 · IPR2023-00858 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Peng qualifies as prior art, so it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenge to claims 1–55.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“remaining limitations. As such, the Petition fails to establish that P3 does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Thus, the Petition fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art. Petitioner’s failure is fatal to all of the Petition’s challenges, each of which relies on Peng as prior art. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that Peng qualifies as prior art to the ’879 patent. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its challenges to claims 1–55 of the ’879 patent. We therefore deny institution of the petitioned inter partes review. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 21
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“Our reviewing court has explained that “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit noted that such support need not rise to the level of disclaimer and that it is possible to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same element. Id. In Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit expanded on the discussion of negative limitations, noting that “properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.” Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357; see also MPEP § 2173.05(i) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023) (stating that, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims”). We agree with Patent Owner that P3 provides support for the subject limitation to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, P3 discloses the use of the Witness application on a mobile device and the Witness application receives sensor data “typical for modern smart-phones.” Ex. 1505, 5:25–35. These sensor/data inputs include G-force/accelerometer, GPS module (speed, location, elevation, direction, etc.), 3D compass, and camera. Id. Additionally, P3 discloses the processing of mobile phone sensor data to derive driving information such as driving speed and G-force. P3 discloses, Another setting that can be controlled in the Settings Screen is the G-force threshold at which the Witness application will assume that a crash has taken place. It is expected that different vehicles and driving styles will need different G-force thresholds to be set to ensure a reasonable sensitivity to crash forces whilst also prevent crash detection false positives.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“3. Conclusion Petitioner does not argue that P3 does not disclose any of the remaining limitations. As such, the Petition fails to establish that P3 does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Thus, the Petition fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art. Petitioner’s failure is fatal to all of the Petition’s challenges, each of which relies on Peng as prior art.” slip op. at 21
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,198,879 - United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 27, 2023 · IPR2023-00912 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–7 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Peng qualifies as prior art to the ’271 patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of the petitioned inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“We find P3’s disclosure reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the limitation in claim 1 that requires determining a start of a driving period during which a mobile device is removably attached to a vehicle and the vehicle is in use, based on inputs received by a user interface and sensor data from the mobile device’s sensor set.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable
“B. Legal Standards—Priority of Filing Date A U.S. patent application is entitled to assert priority to the filing date of an earlier-filed foreign application “for the same invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 119(a). This requires that the earlier-filed foreign application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. See In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”). “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). The written description “test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1016 (second alteration in original) (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We mostly agree with Patent Owner. First, as a matter of claim construction, we agree with Patent Owner that the claimed “driving score” corresponds to an assessment of what type of driver an individual is. See id. at 28; Ex. 1001, 10:10–17 (stating “driving information can be matched to a particular driver” which is “particularly useful when assessing a risk profile of said driver” and “[t]he driving information may comprise the driving score”), 12:4–9 (stating “[t]he driving score may be used to determine a risk profile for at least one of the vehicle and driver”). However, to the extent that Patent Owner would limit a driving score to a “number” (Prelim Resp. 28), we disagree. The ’271 patent specification does not support such a construction. See Ex. 1001, 10:10–17, 12:4–9.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,311,271 - United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00769 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–27 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Peng qualifies as prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A. Legal Standards – Priority In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For a claim in a later-filed U.S. patent application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier U.S. or foreign patent application, the earlier application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that, to obtain the benefit of a parent application’s filing date under section 120, “the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Id. (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 10
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends that “each priority document fails to provide support for at least [1.9]–[1.13] of independent claim 1 (nor the same limitations found in claims 26 and 27) of the ’369 patent.” Pet. 5. While Petitioner arguably provides some explanation for its challenge to limitation [1.9], we observe that Petitioner does not provide any evidence or supporting argument for limitations [1.10]–[1.13]. See Pet. 5–6; Prelim. Resp. 21. As discussed above, we determine that P3’s disclosure reasonably conveys to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of limitation [1.9] of claim 1 that requires “wherein the driving information is derived without data from vehicle sensors.” Ex. 1001, 31:63–64. With respect to limitations [1.10]–[1.13], we determine that the Petition is incomplete and lacks sufficient explanation for Petitioner’s challenge to these limitations.” slip op. at 19
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“Our reviewing court has explained that “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit noted that such support need not rise to the level of disclaimer and that it is possible to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same element. Id. In Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit expanded on the discussion of negative limitations, noting “that properly described alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.” Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357; see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2173.05(i) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023) (stating that, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims”). We agree with Patent Owner that P3 provides support for the limitation in question sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, P3 discloses the use of the Witness application on a mobile device and the Witness application receives sensor data “typical for modern smart-phones.” Ex. 1505, 5:25–35. These sensor/data inputs include G-force/accelerometer, GPS module (speed, location, elevation, direction, etc.), 3D compass, and camera. Id.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“written description support for claims 1, 26, and 27, and so fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art. Therefore, we determine Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges of claims 1, 26, and 27, all of which are based on Peng. C. Claims 2–25 Petitioner does not separately dispute that P3 discloses the limitations in dependent claims 2–25. Therefore, the Petition fails to establish that P3 does not provide sufficient written description support for any one of these claims, and so fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish that Peng qualifies as prior art.” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,192,369 - United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00519 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–13 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Peng qualifies as prior art, and all four grounds relied on Peng.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A. Legal Standards – Priority In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For a claim in a later-filed U.S. patent application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier U.S. or foreign patent application, the earlier application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (To obtain the benefit of a parent application’s filing date under section 120, “the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). 35 U.S.C. § 112. “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[ ] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“Our reviewing court has explained that “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit noted that such support need not rise to the level of disclaimer and that it is possible to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same element. Id. In Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit expanded on the discussion of negative limitations, noting “that properly described alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.” Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357; see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2173.05(i) (9th ed., Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023) (stating that, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims”). We agree with Patent Owner that P3 provides support for the limitation in question sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, P3 discloses the use of the Witness application on a mobile device and the Witness application receives sensor data “typical for modern smart-phones.” Ex. 1505, 5:25–35. These sensor/data inputs include G-force/accelerometer, GPS module (speed, location, elevation, direction, etc.), 3D compass, and camera. Id. Additionally, P3 discloses the processing of mobile phone sensor data to derive driving information such as the driving speed and G-force. P3 discloses that [a]nother setting that can be controlled in the Settings Screen is the G-force threshold at which the Witness application will assume that a crash has taken place. It is expected that different vehicles and driving styles will need different G-force thresholds to be set to ensure a reasonable sensitivity to crash forces whilst also prevent crash detection false positives. Ex. 1505, 14:19–23. Similarly, as discussed, P3 discloses that “the application may be arranged to detect the vehicle speed, and at a particular speed, switch off the screen entirely. It should be understood that the device will continue to record video, telemetry and other information even when the screen is switched off.” Id. at 15:5–8.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“A. Legal Standards – Priority In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For a claim in a later-filed U.S. patent application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier U.S. or foreign patent application, the earlier application must, among other requirements, provide written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the claimed subject matter in the later-filed U.S. application. In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A foreign patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119.”); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (To obtain the benefit of a parent application’s filing date under section 120, “the claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). 35 U.S.C. § 112. “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s specification must ‘reasonably convey[ ] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “For negative claim limitations, . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Id. (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,633,487
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.