- 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 - 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 - Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00557 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 10–12, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 were not shown unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would be a person with a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent training or job experience, with two years of experience in computer networking technology, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner indicates that it does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“associated sessions” With respect to the limitation “associated sessions,” Patent Owner asserted that the ’669 Patent defines those sessions as those that “should not be managed independent from each another,” and continues to assert the same in its Response. PO Resp. 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:37–38). Based on the recitations of the Specification, we construe “associated sessions” as “sessions that should not be managed independent from each other,” as proffered by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 7:37–38. slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected Petitioner’s proposed construction in the District Court Case, and following briefing and oral argument in that proceeding, the District Court concluded that “composition session” means “a signaling session that is separate from the associated sessions and that is for facilitating management of the associated sessions.” PO Resp. 16. Having reviewed the District Court’s determination, we do not discern a significant difference in scope between it and Petitioner’s formulation, and we, thus, adopt its construction of “composition session” in the analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As such, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Foti with RFC 3261, RFC 4566, RFC 2326, Wright, and Lloyd, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving that combination, as we determined in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 17–18. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have consulted and utilized disclosures in the RFC references to understand and implement the protocols disclosed by Foti. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that such skilled artisans would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Wright and Lloyd with those of Foti for the reasons provided. Petitioner has asserted that each of the supporting references would have been used by persons of ordinary skill in the art to modify or enhance the system described in Foti for the benefits described for the proposed changes. Absent reasons the references should not be combined, we determine that the motivation proffered by the Petition is sufficient to support the combination, under the preponderance of the evidence standard.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,667,669 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,667,669 - Walmart Inc. / Current Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Power Concepts, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00569 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend proposing claims 15–28 and the motion to exclude are denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“of the claimed “light emitting diode.” Looking at the intrinsic evidence, neither the claim nor the specification defines the light emitting diode as including an integrated lens. With respect to Dr. Bretschneider’s analysis of Dowling’s lens described in paragraph 24, we disagree with Dr. Bretschneider’s conclusion that Dowling’s lens does not teach a lens as claimed. Ex. 2076 ¶ 431 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 24).” slip op. at 31
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“electriciaan” and not a “licensed electrician.” Opp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002, 25 ¶¶ 6–7, 32 ¶¶ 46, 48). Instead, Petitioner argues that “the disclosure lacks the term ‘licensed electrician,’ lacks a definition of ‘licensed electrician,’ and lacks an explanation of what type of electrical connection would be allowed without the assistance of a licensed electrician.” Id.; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 76–79) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, Petitioner argues that the original application does not support proposed substitute claims 23 and 28. See id. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The ’295 and ’447 applications describe a “skilled” electrician, not a “licensed” electrician. Patent Owner does not show that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret these to be equivalent. Accordingly, we find that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 adds new matter. Proposed substitute claim 24 depends from claim 23 and thus includes the same new matter.” slip op. at 63
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Indefinite
“electrician. See id. (citing Ex. 1002, 25 ¶¶ 6–7). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ducharme, attests that a “licensed electrician is an individual who has obtained a license from a regulatory authority such as a state or local government.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 85. The licensing standards set forth “differ depending upon a given industry” and “change over time.” Id. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that “one skilled in the art is left to speculate as to what type of electrical wirings require a licensed electrician and which do not — there is no reasonable certainty of the scope of the claimed invention, as the standard requires.” Opp. 5–6 (citing Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014)). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 are indefinite. Specifically, we agree that there is no reasonable certainty as to the definition of a licensed electrician, nor how to adapt wiring for series connection without the required assistance of a licensed electrician. Accordingly, we find that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 are indefinite. Proposed substitute claim 24 depends from claim 23 and thus includes the same indefinite limitation.” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 10,429,041 unpatentable§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,429,041 - 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 - Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2021 · IPR2019-01350 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Shellhammer; claim 8 was not reached on the merits.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteDecided for patent owner
“Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted). This is such a situation. We cannot reach a decision on the merits with respect to whether Petitioner has established the unpatentability of claim 8 under any ground of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner, i.e., (1) obvious over Sherman and Trompower, (2) obvious over Shellhammer and Trompower, and (3) obvious over Shellhammer and Panasik.” slip op. at 77
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“challenged claims indeed do satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119 with respect to the foreign application the priority of which it claims.5 Cf. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379– 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Dynamic Drinkware stated that because the USPTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application. Id. at 1380. Under the reasoning of Dynamic Drinkware, the same would be true for a foreign application the priority of which has been claimed. Patent Owner has made no substantive showing in this proceeding of actual entitlement to the filing date of the German Application, by satisfaction of all pertinent requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119. Accordingly, the effective filing date of the ’676 patent is August 8, 2001, not the earlier filing date of German Application No. 100 39 532.5.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“supported by the underlying disclosure of Sherman. Dr. Roy in paragraph 175 of his Declaration (Ex. 1003) cites to column 4, lines 1–8, of Sherman, which states: “The CFP occurs with a regular period, and all 802.11 terminals set their NAV’s during the CFP. To realize such a super frame the following sequence of frames/phases can be used as shown in the graph of FIG. 5.” Ex. 1004, 4:1–5. This disclosure does not indicate, as Dr. Roy concludes, that the control station “relinquish[es]” time to 802.11 CP access if no HIPERLAN/2 transmission requests are pending. Ex. 1003 ¶ 175. We also find unpersuasive Dr. Roy’s testimony that if there is sufficient HIPERLAN/2 traffic, Sherman teaches that the HIPERLAN/2 phase may be extended to very close to the entire superframe. Id. As discussed above, in Sherman, the CFP already is preset, without regard to whether or how many HIPERLAN/2 requests are pending. Ex. 1004, 6:5–6. Dr. Roy’s conclusion is not supported by the disclosure of Sherman and also is not adequately explained.” slip op. at 34
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“III. CONSTITUTIONAL APPOINTMENT Patent Owner argues that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) “are principal officers under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution” “but undisputably are not appointed through the constitutionally-mandated mechanism of appointment for principal officers.” PO Resp. 60. The Federal Circuit, however, addressed this issue and devised a remedy in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2019) cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 2020 WL 6037206 (Oct. 13, 2020). Patent Owner argues that the remedy devised by the Federal Circuit “impermissibly rewrites the statutes governing APJs.” Id. at 61. We decline to consider the argument because the Arthrex decision states otherwise. See Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation.”).” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 7,016,676 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,016,676 - Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2021 · IPR2019-01349 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Shellhammer; claim 5’s patentability could not be reached because its scope is ambiguous.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Further, even assuming that the Patent Owner successfully shows that the Examiner erred in not accepting the applicant’s foreign priority claim, that does not mean Patent Owner, in this proceeding, is automatically entitled to the filing date of the foreign application. If Patent Owner wished to challenge the prior art status of a reference, after Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production by arguing the reference is prior art, Patent Owner would then have to demonstrate, in this proceeding, that the challenged claims indeed do satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119 with respect to the foreign application the priority of which it claims.5 Cf. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379– 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Dynamic Drinkware states that because the USPTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application. Id. at 1380. Under the reasoning of Dynamic Drinkware, the same would be true for a foreign application, the priority of which has been claimed. Patent Owner has made no substantive showing in this proceeding of actual entitlement to the filing date of the German Application, by satisfaction of all pertinent requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119. 5 “[I]f the effective filing date of what is claimed in a United States application is at issue, to preserve symmetry of treatment between sections 120 and 119, the foreign priority application must be examined to ascertain if it supports, within the meaning of section 112, ¶ 1, what is claimed in the United States application.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the effective filing date of the ’676 patent is August 8, 2001, not the earlier filing date of German Application No. 100 39 532.5.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we have no reason to disagree with Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, which is supported by the testimony of Dr. Roy (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63), except to note that the open-ended qualifier “or more” as applied to years of experience expands the level to encompass that of an expert, which is inappropriate for the level of 7 Patent Owner has not presented any objective evidence of nonobviousness or any argument in that regard. “ordinary skill.” Petitioner’s articulation without the expansive qualifier appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Therefore, we adopt the Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, but without the expansive qualifier “or more” as applied to the amount of experience. C.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“stations which operate in accordance with a first radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface standard” Claim 1 recites: “stations which operate in accordance with a first radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface standard.” Ex. 1001, 6:24–26. Although Petitioner asserts that no construction is necessary for this phrase and that the plain and ordinary meaning applies, Petitioner nonetheless proposes that the phrase, according to its plain and ordinary meaning, means “stations, each of which operates in accordance with a first radio interface standard, a second radio interface standard, or both.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that no construction is necessary. PO Resp. 14. Regarding Petitioner’s articulation of the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase, Patent Owner has not refuted it in any way, and it appears consistent with what the phrase ostensibly indicates. Thus, on the record before us, we accept and adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the plain and ordinary meaning for this phrase. slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“renders the frequency band available for access by the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard if stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access to the frequency band” Claim 1 recites: “renders the frequency band available for access by the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard if stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access to the frequency band.” Ex. 1001, 6:32–36. For this phrase, Petitioner asserts that “claim construction is not necessary.”8 Pet. 15. Patent Owner, likewise, “submits that the Board need not construe this claim term.” PO Resp. 14. We agree with the parties that express claim construction of this claim term or phrase is not necessary. Although no additional discussion is necessary, we point out certain inaccuracies in the Patent Owner Response, to avoid potential confusion. slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,016,676 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,016,676 - U.D. Electronic Corp. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 22, 2020 · IPR2019-00511 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–16 are unpatentable; the motion to amend is denied for substitute claims 17, 20, and 21 as indefinite and granted for claims 18, 19, 22, and 23.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art in of the ’302 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or mechanical engineering, with two or more years of experience designing connectors with EMI shielding. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art is largely the same, urging a similar amount of education and experience, detailing “at least one year of experience with electrical connectors having internal electronic components, or at least two years’ experience with designing electrical connectors having internal electronic components.” Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 27). We determined previously that the proffered definitions were largely the same and we determined them to be appropriate for the technology addressed by this proceeding. Inst. Dec. 7. Patent Owner subsequently agreed that “there are not meaningful differences between the parties’ definitions of a POSITA for purposes of this proceeding.” PO Resp. 9–10. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“After review of the proffered arguments, we remain persuaded that Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the ’302 Patent. Patent Owner cites to multiple cases regarding the use of embodiments of the invention set forth in the specification to interpret limitations, despite claim language that could be interpreted more broadly. PO Resp. 16–18; PO Sur-reply 8–10 (citing Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301–02 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo–Trans, Inc., 93 F.3d 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1550–51 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We determine that the portions of the specification cited by Patent Owner are not express or implied definitions of the term “effectively curved portion.” See Phillips at 1321 (the specification “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication”). Patent Owner continues that “the only embodiments disclosed in the ’302 Patent have the substrates positioned substantially orthogonal and substantially vertical to the face of the housing,” and “the run of the conductors must make an approximately 90° change in direction to provide an electrical interconnection.” Id. at 18. Such arguments and case law would be pertinent if we interpreted claim 1, for example, as requiring substrates to not be orthogonal or if we required the “effectively curved portion” to not result in a 90° change in direction. We do not interpret claim 1 that way, so Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. disclosure into a claim that does not recite such requirements. It is improper to add a limitation appearing in the specification and the drawings, but not appearing in the unambiguous language of a claim. See Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This is particularly true where the specification does not define the term at issue to include that additional limitation or otherwise include language requiring it. Claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13–16 recite, in part, that the first conductors include an “effectively curved portion,” and each claim recites that limitation unambiguously. Although we acknowledge the varying embodiments disclosed in the ’302 Patent, we are persuaded that confining the “effectively curved portion” to be “approximately 90º” is overly narrow. We continue to determine that adopting Patent Owner’s construction would unduly limit the cited claims, i.e., claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13–16, by importing limitations that are not part of the claims. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, we continue to determine that “effectively curved portion” should be construed as any form of bend of the first conductors.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“unpersuasive because the unfiltered connector of Hughes does not disclose an internal board, and that any combination of Kan with Hughes would result, at most, in the “second conductors,” but not the “first conductors,” being bent so that the internal conductors mate with the internal substrate. PO Resp. 43 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 124, 128). Patent Owner additionally asserts that the reorientation envisioned by the combination would add to material costs, reduce performance due to longer conductor runs, necessitate additional alterations, and provide no space savings or advantage. Id. at 43– 44 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 122, 129). Petitioner responds that the rationale for combining Kan and Hughes merely involves a design choice, and would apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results in an improved system. Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–421). We agree with Petitioner. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Any modification of a prior art device will result in changes thereto, as a matter of course; the question, rather, is whether there existed sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill to make the proposed modifications in light of the evidence of record. We find that Petitioner’s evidence of the benefits resulting from the combination, i.e., saving space for the connector assembly and reorienting the plug-receiving opening for insertion of a connector plug in accordance with the desired implementation based on where the housing is mounted, provide sufficient motivation to make these changes, and that Patent Owner’s arguments about the materials costs and possible reduced performance are insufficient to defeat the evidence of motivation to combine.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Kan is the product of impermissible hindsight, and the combination would change the basic principles of operation of the connectors for which they were designed. PO Resp. 45–47. Patent Owner argues that “Hughes was designed to operate by mounting to an external circuit board, and Kan was designed to operate by engaging a circuit board inside of the housing,” and their combination would render Kan unfit for its intended purpose of supporting a compact size. Id. at 46–47. We do not agree. Mr. Baxter has acknowledged that Hughes and Kan are analogous technologies directed to the common problem in the art of incorporating a circuit board with a connector so that it may offer additional functions. See Ex. 2006, ¶¶ 145– 148. We disagree that the combination of Kan and Hughes would change combination of Kan and Hughes would not be the same as the individual connectors, and we are not persuaded that the size of Kan would need to be increased such that it would be unfit for its intended purposes. As such, we do not determine Patent Owner’s argument to be persuasive.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 6,773,302 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 6,773,302 - Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2018 · CBM2016-00095 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103(a) over Tymes; unpatentability under § 112, ¶ 1 was not shown.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, as they conflate “power” with “transmission range”—the claim term recites “low-power,” not “low-transmission range.” We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction would import improperly a limitation into the claims, and we credit Mr. James T. Geier’s testimony (Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39) as it consistent with the other evidence of record before us. We address below each of Patent Owner’s arguments in turn. First, Patent Owner argues that “the claim language itself indicates that the claimed low-power transceiver transmits low-power signals,” citing the language of claim 2, “wherein the low-power signal comprises a logical IP address.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:60–61). However, “the low-power signal” does not necessarily require a transceiver to transmit signals having a limited transmission range. Patent Owner does not explain meaningfully, or provide persuasive evidence to show, how a “low-power signal” is necessarily related to the transmission range of a transceiver. Consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, “a low-power transceiver” refers to a transceiver that consumes less power, e.g., by transmitting and receiving low power signals. Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39.” slip op. at 23
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“However, Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The purported problems that arose with the development of networks hosting wireless device—unlawful interruption of that data, interference, and contention—are addressed by using an extremely low-power transmitter. Ex. 1001, 5:65−6:11. As discussed above, the challenged claims recite a generic “low-power transceiver,” not an extremely low-power transmitter. Additionally, the alleged problem of transforming data to a different protocol is addressed by an unclaimed feature, as the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the invention is not necessarily limited to certain protocol or requires a protocol conversion. Id. at 13:55−14:5. Moreover, the challenged claims do not requires a protocol conversion or recite a device for converting data from one protocol to a different protocol. Rather, they recite generically a “network of addressable devices.” Patent Owner’s argument that the claims are “directed to an improvement in communication technology between remote devices that are accessible by wireless communication and a central location via a circuit interface” is unavailing. Significantly, the claims are not directed to a new type of transceiver, interface circuit, or controller to establish a communication link between a remote device and the central location. Instead, the claims are directed to transmitting data between locations using conventional or generic computer components. The challenged claims essentially recite a device for communicating information that comprises: (1) a low-power transceiver for transmitting or receiving data; (2) an interface circuit for communicating with a central 33 location; and (3) a controller for establishing a communication link. The Specification confirms that these features were known in the art. Ex. 1001, 5:23–25, 6:62–64 (“As is well known by those skilled in the art, a variety of transducers can perform this functionality adequately.”), 10:13–15 (“[T]he controller 256 may be a general purpose microprocessor or microcontroller.”), 10:21–23 (“The interface 258 within the transceiver 270 is designed to interface with this typical/standard telephone circuitry 263.”), 10:23–26 (“The specific implementation of the circuitry of [interface] 258 will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art and need not be described in detail herein.”). Indeed, the FCC Bulletin also confirms that low-power wireless transmitters were “used virtually everywhere,” noting that “[c]ordless phones, baby monitors, garage door openers, wireless home security systems, keyless automobile entry systems and hundreds of other types of common electronic equipment rely on such transmitters to function.” Ex. 2001, 1. Moreover, the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the communication link between the remote device and central location can be established by initiating a phone call over a telephone line that is part of the public-switched telephone network. Ex. 1001, 2:34−38. There is no dispute that such a communication link was known in the art. Id. at 10:21−26.” slip op. at 33
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“38 For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 of the ’842 patent are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Whether the challenged claims lack a patent-eligible inventive concept Turning to the second step in the analysis, we look for additional elements that can “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. That is, we determine whether the claims include an “inventive concept,” i.e., an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The additional elements must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 768 S. Ct. at 1297−98. Here, Petitioner argues that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable because they are “directed only to an abstract idea with nothing more added than generic computing components and ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ previously performed in the field (both individually and as an ordered combination in the claims).” Pet. 23–24 (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). According to Petitioner, the challenged claims “recite the concept of establishing a communication route between two points ‘as performed by a generic computer,’ without disclosing any ‘novel or unusual’ improvement to ‘the functioning of the computer itself’ or any ‘advance in computer technology that makes the performance of [routine] functions more effective.” Id. at 24 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–60). 39” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“As Petitioner notes (Pet. 66−68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 353−366), Tymes discloses “an improved, low-cost, low-power, data communication network in which a number of remote terminal units are able to send packets of data to a central station, and . . . to receive acknowledge signals and data from the central station.” Ex. 1005, 2:36−56 (emphasis added). Tymes describes that the central station includes a number of base stations connected to a central computer. Id. at 3:21−25. As shown in Figure 1, the network includes base stations 12−14, each of which “is coupled by an RF link to a number of remote units.” Id. at 4:61−5:44. The RF link is used for sending “data packets from the remote terminals to the base stations and return.” Id. at 3:48−51 (emphasis added), 6:66–7:2. In fact, Tymes teaches that the “advantage of this type of RF data link is that a band may be used which does not require site licensing by the F.C.C.” Id. at 3:55−59. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that “low-power” refers to only the remote terminals, Tymes describes a low-power network that includes base stations. As Petitioner also notes (Pet. 66–67, n.38), Tymes teaches an “indoor” limited range network and an RF data link “usable without site licensing under F.C.C. regulations, so that the expense and delays incident to such licensing are eliminated or minimized.” Ex. 1005, 2:36–56. Significantly, Tymes discloses that the optimum frequency is in the 902−928 MHz range 54 for the RF transceivers in the base stations. Id. at 6:66–7:2, 13:58–61, 18:1−3. The FCC limits the power for unlicensed transmitters, and the power limit under the FCC regulations is less than or equal to one watt for the disclosed 902–928 MHz range. Ex. 1010, 217; Ex. 1017, 7:9–11, 31–34. Mr. Geier testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that an indoor communications network as taught by Tymes requires only a limited range (e.g., 1 mile or less (the length of a storage facility)), so that high-powered transceivers would be unnecessary and disfavored,” and that such an artisan “would have considered a transmission of 1 Watt to be a ‘low-power’ transmission, with a limited range of approximately 1 mile.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 358−359. Mr. Geier also testifies that such an artisan would have had a reason to use low-power transceivers in the base stations so that they are usable indoors without licensing under the FCC regulations. Id. We credit Mr. Geier’s testimony as it is consistent with Tymes’ teachings and other evidence. Ex. 1005, 2:36–56, 6:66–7:2, 13:58−61, 18:1−3, Figs. 1, 3, 10; Ex. 1010, 21; Ex. 1017, 7:9−11, 29−34 (explaining that “unlicensed systems using conventional modulation techniques attain ranges on the order of 500−1000 feet” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 8,908,842 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,908,842
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.