• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01349 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because claims 1–13 are entitled to the May 26, 2005 priority date, making the asserted references not prior art and the obviousness grounds unlikely to prevail.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, if Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold reasonable likelihood standard for institution, then institution will be denied. See id. at 1378–1379.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States . . . shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application.” (emphasis added). “In essence, this means that in a chain of continuing applications, a claim in a later application receives the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application so long as the disclosure in the earlier application meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, including the written description requirement, with respect to that claim.” Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And to determine whether a parent application meets the written description requirement, “the disclosure must be considered as a whole, as the person of ordinary skill in the art would read it, to determine if it reasonably conveys possession” of the claimed invention. Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Labs. Private Ltd., 111 F.4th 1358, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citation and emphasis omitted); see also Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the purpose of the written description requirement “is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude . . . does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification”).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) if presented, objective evidence of non-obviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). As previously noted, the first factor regarding the scope of available prior art is the dispositive issue of this Petition, which is largely defined by the effective filing date of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “Because we determine that no inter partes review will be instituted on IPR2024-01350, we find it unnecessary to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the ’849 patent. See Paper 9, 9. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for the Board to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the ’849 patent is denied. Petitioner further requests that all briefing in this proceeding be provided to the Certificates of Correction and Petitions branches for their consideration, citing Patent Owner’s “duties of candor and good faith.” Id. at 2, 10. However, in view of our determination not to institute review in this proceeding, we defer to the Certificates of Correction and Petitions branches to carry out their duly authorized duties. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 23

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,719,849
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01350 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–15 because Petitioner did not show the asserted references were prior art; the claims were supported by the ’330 application’s 2005 filing date.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “To prevail on its obviousness challenges, Petitioner must show that the ’848 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the ’330 application. This issue is dispositive because none of the references relied on by Petitioner qualify as prior art if the ’848 patent is entitled to the benefit of the May 26, 2005, filing date of the ’330 application. Pet. 6, 13. We start by explaining why Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “1. The Burden of Persuasion “In an inter partes review . . ., the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). That burden, termed the burden of persuasion, “is the ultimate burden assigned to a party who must prove something to a specified degree of certainty.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). That burden never shifts to the patentee. Id. at 1379. In order for an inter partes review to be instituted, “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 [must] show[] that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “d) Analysis Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that its asserted references, including Steuer 750 which is a publication of the ’330 application, are prior art to the ’848 patent. Petitioner has not shown that the ’330 application fails to provide written description support for claim 1 of the ’848 patent, which recites “video data” samples and representations.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “a chain of priority from the ’330 application to the ’848 patent contain at least the same disclosure as the ’330 application, Petitioner has not shown that the ’848 patent should not be given the benefit of the effective filing date of the ’330 application. The May 26, 2005 filing date of the ’330 application predates the December 1, 2005 publication date of Steuer 750, the August 13, 2013 issue date of Steuer 768, and the December 2, 2010 and May 27, 2010 publication and filing dates of Neumeier.10 Pet. 7; Ex. 1005, code (43); Ex. 1006, code (45); Ex. 1007, codes (43), (60).11 Therefore, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the asserted claims in the ’848 patent would have been obvious over the asserted combinations of Steuer 750, Steuer 768, and Neumeier.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,719,848
• Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH / Dynaenergetics US, Inc. v. Qinetiq LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00003 · APJ William A Capp · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–5 not unpatentable; Petitioner failed to prove its asserted §101, §102, §103, and §112 grounds, including indefiniteness and written-description challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “prevail, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Serra testifies that he is familiar with the” slip op. at 45

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “process of claim 1. The first principal decision is the selection of a known liner design from a library that is made at the beginning of the design process. The second principal decision is made at the conclusion of the design process where a “final liner design” emerges after hole shapes produced by modified liners converge toward the desired hole shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read claim 1 in context, would understand that the term “optimized” in the claim refers to the hole shape of the known liner design that is selected from among the known liner designs in the library during the selection step of the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly understand that the design that is chosen in the initial selection process is “optimized” with respect to the population of known liner designs in the library as opposed to being “optimized” relative to liner designs produced during the later varying and modelling steps of the design process.” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1–5 of the ’039” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,215,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Bilski · Phillips · Markman · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,215,039
• Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,667,669
• NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01062 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–15, 19–20, and 22–24; allowed substitute claims 26–29, 31–38, and 40–44; and denied substitute claims 30 and 39 for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; see Pet. 10. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Mr. Fischer’s definition for purposes of that decision. Institution Decision (Paper 7) 9–10. Patent Owner states that it “accepts that definition for the purposes of this proceeding.” Rev’d MTA 24. Mr. Fischer’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Mr. Fischer’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for “code” and “Electronic Product Code (EPC).” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 6. Patent Owner asserts that “the limitations of the substitute claims do not require construction and should, instead, be construed in accordance with their ordinary meaning.” Rev’d MTA 24. According to Patent Owner, the addition of certain features of the proposed substitute claims renders moot Petitioner’s arguments concerning the meaning of the term “code.” Id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that the content of the recited codes— an EPC and a code different from the EPC—constitutes “printed matter” (non-functional descriptive material) and, therefore, are not entitled to patentable weight. Opp. to Rev’d MTA 7–10; Pet. Sur-reply 5–6. We need not reach this issue. Even if we construed the specifically recited codes as being non-functional descriptive material, Petitioner, for reasons discussed below, has not shown that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable. Also, the parties do not identify any other issue in this case that turns on whether the two recited codes are non-functional descriptive material. See, e.g., Opp. to Rev’d MTA 11–12 (Petitioner arguing that the relied-on prior art discloses codes in the form of an EPC and a TID (i.e. a code other than the EPC)). On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “A patent claim is indefinite when that claim, “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [does not] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. BioSig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).” slip op. at 12

  • ScopeDecided for patent owner

    “Motion to Amend, that “[c]onstruing ‘a first and second memory bank’ to mean, for example, two memories instead of ‘a memory’ also impermissibly broadens the claims.” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 3024– 3027); see also Pet. Sur-reply 1–2 (“the scope of the proposed claims is impermissibly broadened to encompass logical memory banks storing codes in more than one memory.”); Tr. 7:12–13 (“That’s improper because it enlarges the scope of claims to include two memories instead of just one.”). Petitioner’s argument appears to assume that the proposed substitute claims require two memories (as opposed to the recited “memory bank[s]”) and that, because two memories are quantitatively more than one memory, the claims have been broadened. We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. The arguments are contingent upon a construction of two memory banks being the same scope as two memories. See Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (“Construing . . . impermissibly broadens the claims.”). Petitioner has not offered any persuasive argument or evidence that the two different terms—“memory” and “memory bank” are coextensive or that the more general term “memory” can encompass two of the more specific “memory bank[s].” Further, even if the proposed substitute claims required two memories rather than two memory banks, adding the requirement of a second memory (or, as written in the proposed claims, two memory banks rather than “a memory” as in the issued claim) is further limiting the claims and, therefore, is not broadening the scope. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 183 F.3d at 1374. We agree with Patent Owner that the amended language regarding two memory banks does not impermissibly broaden the scope relative to the original claims.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,134,451
• Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2018 · PGR2017-00002 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot shown unpatentable

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), enablement is separate and distinct from the written-description requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1344. “The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.” United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[A] patent specification complies with the statute even if a ‘reasonable’ amount of routine experimentation is required in order to practice a claimed invention.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors, referred to as the Wands factors, include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breath of the claims. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. It is Petitioner’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of the ’989 patent lack enablement. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). Petitioner’s evidence and argument does not sufficiently establish that the ’989 patent fails to teach those in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See PO Resp. 58–66. The Petition does not address the Wands factors sufficiently so as to show that undue experimentation is required to make or use the claimed invention. For example, neither the Petition nor Dr. Pearce sufficiently addresses the state of the prior art or the relative skill of those in the art. See Pet. 64–65; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–152; PO Resp. 62. As Patent Owner argues, this is an “omission[] that [is] particularly fatal” to Petitioner’s enablement argument, because Petitioner argues that mechanical expansion and inflation expansion are incompatible and cannot be combined. PO Resp. 62; see Pet. 30–38, 64. Dr. Grundfest, however, testifies that it was well known to combine mechanical and balloon-based expansion in surgical devices. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 132–136; PO Resp. 56. During cross-examination, Dr. Pearce testified that he “thought about the state-of-the-art in minimally invasive surgery during the 1990s.” Ex. 2003 18:1–14. Dr. Pearce’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently address whether he considered whether it was well known to combine mechanical expansion and inflation expansion in surgical devices. For another example, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Pearce, the Petition asserts that a redesign of the expansion design disclosed in the ’989 patent “would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 149). Likewise, Dr. Pearce testifies, “[s]uch a redesign would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. Dr. Pearce, however, does not explain sufficiently why combining mechanical expansion and inflation expansion would require a substantial amount of time and cost. See id. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We are not persuaded that Dr. Pearce’s testimony concerning the level of skill in the art is erroneous to the extent it does not explicitly require experience related to devices used for uterine surgical procedures or surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. Patent Owner’s argument and Dr. Grundfest’s testimony is inconsistent with the ’989 patent, which does not disclose an ablation device or method of using an ablation device that solves problems unique to endometrial ablation or unique to surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. The ’989 patent does not limit the art to be “the field of minimally invasive surgical and uterine devices” (Ex. 2005 ¶ 60). The ’989 patent states: “The present invention relates generally to the field of apparatuses and methods for ablating or coagulating the interior surfaces of body organs. Specifically, it relates to an apparatus and method for ablating the interior linings of body organs such as the uterus and gallbladder.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–24; see also id. at 2:36–38 (“The present invention is an apparatus and method of ablation and/or coagulating tissue, such as that of the uterus or other organ”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,247,989 unpatentable
  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,247,989
• Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Microsoft's rehearing request, maintaining that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are entitled to the July 17, 2001 priority date and that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/087,098 (Ex. 1014, “the ’098 application”), which was filed on March 1, 2002, and that the ’864 patent and the ’098 application claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/306,326 (Ex. 1015, “the ’326 provisional”), which was filed on July 17, 2001. Dec. 14–15 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 10; Paper 14 (“PO Resp.”), 8; Ex. 1001; Ex. 1014, 2). We determined that Smart Skins LLC (“Patent Owner”) had shown sufficiently that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to a filing date of July 17, 2001, because the disclosures of the ’098 application and the ’326 provisional (collectively, “the priority applications”) provide written description support for the challenged claims of the ’864 patent. Dec. 14–21.” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “established by Patent Owner for the challenged claims (July 17, 2001) predates the earliest filing dates of Janik and Kehoe established by Petitioner (September 4, 2001, and October 24, 2001, respectively). Dec. 22. We determined that, as a result, Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dec. 22. Therefore, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over Janik and Kehoe. Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that, because we erred in determining that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Petitioner requests that we address the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe “conditionally,” even if we do not change our determination regarding the priority date of the challenged claims. Req. Reh’g 15. We are not persuaded, though, that it would be an efficient use of resources to address all of the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe when Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Janik and Kehoe are prior art to the challenged claims. Therefore, we decline to “conditionally” address any remaining issues regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe.” slip op. at 15

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,079,864
• Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Lunsford and Canova; Janik and Kehoe do not qualify as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not identify any material differences between their respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 11–12; PO Resp. 5. Thus, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case. Further, our findings and conclusions in this case would be the same under either party’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent necessary, though, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, which is supported by the declaration of Dr. Ian Cullimore. PO Resp. 5; Ex. 2006 ¶ 27. As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in engineering or computer science, a minimum of a few years of experience with designing and developing software and hardware systems for mobile devices, and general knowledge of embedded systems, and software principles, peripherals, communications protocols, and the like.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that the specification of the ’864 patent supports construing the adding limitations to mean “configured to enable or contribute to enabling the peripheral device and the mobile device to function together,” as Petitioner proposes. For example, the ’864 patent states that “I/O interface 406 [of electronics 400] facilitates an application or a system service of mobile device 300 in reading the inputs provided by peripherals 102–104, and to writing the outputs to be outputted to peripherals 102–104.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 65–col. 5, l. 1 (emphasis added). The ’864 patent further explains that “protocol processor 403 [of electronics 400] is employed to recover the input data” from peripherals 102–104 (id. at col. 4, ll. 43–48 (emphasis added)), and that “device driver 532 [of mobile device 300] notifies protocol processor 403 to package the data for output to peripherals 102–104” (id. at col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 1 (emphasis added)). These portions of the ’864 patent indicate that the electronic component, which includes the protocol processor, facilitates the transmission of data between the peripheral device and the mobile device, and, thus, contributes to enabling the peripheral device and the mobile device to function together. Id. at col. 6, ll. 3–4 (“Accordingly, data may be . . . inputted and/or outputted for mobile device 300 and peripherals 102–104.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “burden to come forward with evidence that claims 1 and 15 are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. As a result, the burden of production returns to Petitioner to show that claims 1 and 15 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Id. at 1380. Petitioner argues that the priority applications do not disclose that the electronic component is coupled to the LEDs or that the electronic component is configured (or designed) to add the LEDs to the mobile device. Pet. Reply 2–4. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “[t]he two ancestor applications . . . do not describe those LEDs interacting with either the mobile device or the supposed electronic component in the cover,” but instead imply “that the LEDs control themselves.” Id. at 3–4. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. First, the priority applications do not imply that the LEDs control themselves. The priority applications disclose that the electronic component on the cover includes data for personalizing various aspects of the mobile phone. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1014, 8–9 (“having data . . . for personalizing various behavioral or non-visual aspects of the personality of exposed mobile phone”), 21 (“During this exchange of data, settings . . . complementary to the personalizing theme of the interchangeable covering [are] immediately implemented in the mobile electronic device”); Ex. 1015, 7–8, 20. The priority applications further disclose that the “included data control[s] the LEDs.” PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1014, 17; Ex. 1015, 16. Thus, the priority applications convey that the electronic component on the cover includes data for controlling the LEDs. Second, the priority applications describe the LEDs as interacting with the mobile device and the electronic component. As discussed above, the priority applications disclose that the electronic component and the mobile phone exchange data for personalizing various aspects of the mobile phone. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1014, 8–9, 21; Ex. 1015, 7–8, 20. With respect to personalization of the mobile phone using the LEDs on the cover, the priority applications disclose that the “LEDs may be utilized for various visual activities, such as, but not limited to, displaying a message, or lighting up corresponding to sounds.” PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1014, 17; Ex. 1015, 16. Thus, the priority applications convey that the electronic component is coupled to the mobile phone and the LEDs, and that the electronic component enables the mobile device to function together with the LEDs (e.g., so that the LEDs can be used to display a message or light up corresponding to sounds). Therefore, Patent Owner has shown sufficiently that claims 1 and 15” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the cited teachings of Lunsford and Canova. Pet. 23–26 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 32–38). We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning. Specifically, Lunsford and Canova relate to the same field of endeavor as the ’864 patent, that is, a cover for a mobile device that adds a peripheral to the mobile device.10 Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–30; Ex. 1003, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 3; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 47–55, col. 2, ll. 25–28. Further, as discussed above, Lunsford teaches a connector disposed on the cover body, and Canova also teaches a connector disposed on the cover body. Ex. 1003, col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 5, col. 10, ll. 34–45, Fig. 3E; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 53– 55, col. 2, ll. 1–8, col. 2, ll. 41–47, Figs. 5A, 5B. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these interrelated teachings of Lunsford and Canova so that the connector in Lunsford is disposed on the cover body as taught by Canova. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35–37; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Also, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to 9 As a result, the challenged claims would have been obvious over Lunsford, even without Canova. 10 In addition, Canova incorporates by reference the contents of Lunsford. Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 6–8, col. 1, ll. 19–20. dispose the connector in Lunsford on the cover body, as taught by Canova, in order to allow the connector in Lunsford to mate easily with the corresponding connector of a handheld computer. Pet. 25–26; Ex. 1007 ¶ 38; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,079,864 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,079,864
• Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00637 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious; Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support and indefiniteness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “admitted that the patented features of voice and revoiced text are responsible for ‘giv[ing] the phone back to folks with hearing loss.’” PO Resp. 48 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner is offering the statement for the truth that voice and re-voiced text gives the phone back to folks with hearing loss. Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Puzey was discussing the existence of features in his company’s product rather than features in Patent Owner’s product does not change that his statement is offered as proof regarding an alleged long-felt need for the features. Accordingly, his testimony is hearsay. slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “art is telecommunication systems. Thus, a [POSA] is a person familiar with at least that technology by way of background and/or experience.” CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 13 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015); see also CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00780, Paper 35, 9 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015) (reaffirming our finding in IPR2013- 00549). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree” with that definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that, “without waiving the foregoing objection and reserving all rights,” states that it will “appl[y]” our prior definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 3. By not setting forth arguments advocating a particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and by applying our prior definition, Patent Owner has waived arguments for any other definition. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as expressed by its declarant, Mr. Occhiogrosso. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 26–27. This person typically has “a bachelor’s degree” slip op. at 35

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “understand a “communication link,” as claimed, to refer to the “communication line” described in the specification. In particular, the link is “intended not only to apply to a traditional land-line . . . but also to all equivalents that offer similar functionality.” Id. at 8:60–63. A link could be “a portion of the bandwidth” of a particular connection, such that a single mode of connection (e.g., IP) could carry out two types of communication (voice and text), with each type corresponding to a different “communication link.” See id. at 8:44–47, 8:63–65. For example, as explained in the ’838 patent, “[e]ach of the telephone lines could be . . . a portion of the bandwidth of an ISDN or DSL service.” Id. at 8:53–65. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “communication link” as “any communication session, protocol, link, connection, or path distinguishable from [another] communication link[].”” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “3. Combination of References As we discussed above, Petitioner’s combination takes the two-line” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,908,838 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,908,838
• Shinn Fu Company Of America, Inc. / Shinn Fu Corporation v. The Tire Hanger CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00208 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable under the stated §102 and §103 grounds; the motion to amend is granted, and substitute claims 6–10 are patentable over the prior art of record.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “that requires construction beyond what was done at the time of institution. Specifically, substitute claim 6 replaces the term “placing” with the new term “hanging.” We see no reason to interpret “hanging” apart from its plain and ordinary meaning. Thus, consistent with its dictionary definition, we construe “hanging” as “to fasten to some elevated point without support from below.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (2000) (emphasis added). The substitute claims also use the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” which Shinn Fu argues should be construed presumptively as equivalent to “comprising.” Opp. 3–4 (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03). Tire Hanger argues for a narrower construction because, in its view, any additional steps would “materially change the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed method,” pointing to column 1, lines 26–59, of the ’897 patent. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1002). We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would view adding a simple extra step, such as raising the wheel to trip a safety latch while removing the wheel from the support arm (see, e.g., Ex. 1012, Fig. 2, 2:61–70), as materially changing the basic objective of the claimed invention in terms of being “easily accessible within the work space,” “remain[ing] out of the way,” and “not requir[ing] workers to bend over,” as made clear in the specification. Ex. 1002, 1:54–59. Thus, we determine that the phrase “consisting essentially of” should be construed as equivalent to “comprising,” so long as any additional unlisted steps “do not have a material effect on the basic and novel characteristics” of the claimed method. PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 1998).” slip op. at 6

  • ScopeMotion to amend, grantedDecided for patent owner

    “enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.” Shinn Fu argues that claim 9, which Tire Hanger proposes as a substitute for original claim 4, impermissibly enlarges claim scope by deleting the requirement that the individual “does not have to bend significantly at the waist to guide the wheel over the hanger.” That omission, in Shinn Fu’s view, makes claim 9 broader, not narrower, because it infers that an individual may indeed be bending over while handling the wheel on the support arm. Id. at 21–22. We disagree. Claim 9 depends from substitute claim 6, which recites that, when the vehicle is elevated, “the human can remove the wheel without bending over,” and when the wheel is on the support arm, the wheel can be removed “without the human bending over.” Thus, as a matter of dependency, claim 9 incorporates the limitations from claim 6 that entail handling the wheel on the support arm “without the human bending over.” That an amendment simply removes a limitation from a dependent claim and adds it 11 Shinn Fu also argues that the Motion to Amend should be denied because Tire Hanger failed to comply with its obligation of first “conferring with the Board” before filing the Motion, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Opp. 2. We are not inclined to deny the Motion to Amend on this procedural ground. Before filing the Motion, Tire Hanger’s legal representative contacted the Board to seek clarification on whether a conference call was necessary and was advised it was not. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 1–4. As such, we are satisfied that Tire Hanger fulfilled its obligation of conferring with the Board. to the claim from which it depends does not mean that the amendment has broadened the scope of the dependent claim from which the limitation has been removed. As such, we are not persuaded by Shinn Fu’s argument. Rather, we find that Tire Hanger’s amendment does not violate the prohibition on enlarging claim scope.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “support for its use of the term “human” in the proposed substitute claims. Opp. 23. According to Shinn Fu, the specification only refers to a “worker” performing the steps of removing and replacing the vehicle’s wheel, not a “human.” Id. In Shinn Fu’s view, by using the term “human,” rather than “worker,” in the substitute claims, Tire Hanger has broadened the claims to include “such embodiments or species as newborns, toddlers, children, disabled people, and decrepit people,” for which the specification purportedly lacks written description support. Id. We construe claims based on a reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and prosecution history. Shinn Fu’s proposed construction is unreasonable. The specification of the ’897 patent speaks expressly in terms of “individuals in handling tire/wheel assemblies when mounting and removing them from vehicles.” Ex. 1002, 1:41–43 (emphasis added). Likewise, the original claims refer to “a person” and “an individual” in describing removal of the wheel from the vehicle. Id. at 8:24–30. Those disclosures provide clear support for use of the term “human” in the substitute claims. Thus, we are not persuaded that Tire Hanger’s proposed amendment of the claims lacks written description support.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Komorita, on the other hand, presents a different picture because it clearly discloses what is called a “tire hanger” on an automotive lift. Ex. 1004, Abstract, Fig. 29. Even so, Tire Hanger asserts that the claimed method is patentable over Komorita because Komorita “merely teaches placing a wheel in a cradle” for holding the wheel from below, not “hanging the wheel on the support arm” or “guiding a hole in the wheel over the support arm,” as required by substitute claim 6. Mot. 13–14; Reply 9; Tr. 30–31. Thus, the question arises as to whether “hanging” a wheel on “a support arm,” per claim 6, is patentably distinct from supporting the wheel from below in a cradle, per Komorita. We conclude it is. To begin, we previously construed the term “hanging” to mean “to attach or place something so that it is held up without support from below.” See section III.A.2 above. Notwithstanding that Komorita is labeled as a “tire hanger,” it is clear from Komorita that the structure actually disclosed is not a hanger but a cradle that supports the wheel from below. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 113, 114, Fig. 29. Thus, given our claim construction, Komorita does not appear to meet the “hanging” limitation of substitute claim 6. Moreover, the ’897 patent expressly distinguishes the claimed invention from cradle-like structures, such as that of Komorita. Notably, the ’897 patent describes various embodiments of hangers, each of which is “adapted to fit inside the rim of the tire/wheel assembly.” Ex. 1002, 6:17–21 (emphasis added). Figure 6 of the ’897 patent depicts one such embodiment with the hanger inside of the tire/wheel assembly. The ’897 patent goes on to state that “other structures may be used” to support a tire/wheel assembly, such as “an arcuate cradle” configured “to receive a tire therein . . . to rest the tire in the cradle.” Id. at 6:22–24 (emphases added). Further, another embodiment of a cradle is described that includes “a plurality of arms . . . adapted to receive and hold a tire therein,” and where the tire “rests in the cradle.” Id. at 6:35–37 (emphases added). A plain reading of the ’897 patent reveals that the hanger structures (id. at 6:15–21) are a separate embodiment from the cradle structures (id. at 6:22–42) because they are disclosed as “other structures” and because their modes of retaining the tire/wheel assembly are different. The hanger structure allows the tire/wheel assembly to hang thereon, and includes a specific structure adapted to fit inside a hole in the tire rim. Id. at 6:15–21. In contrast, the cradle structure receives a tire therein, and comprises a structure adapted to fit around and below the outside of the tire. Id. at 6:22–42. As such, we find that there is a structural distinction between hangers and cradles. Although the ’897 patent discloses both hangers and cradles, proposed” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,681,897 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 6,681,897

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.