- Hubspot, Inc. v. Trident Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 27, 2022 · IPR2022-00907 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Because the person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument regarding actual individuals that allegedly are disqualified by Petitioner’s definition. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“An inventor is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of patent claim terms by providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, we are persuaded that the passage cited by Patent Owner exhibits a clear intent to define “campaign” and does so with the requisite clarity, deliberateness, and precision. We thus lexicographic definition for the term. See Ex. 1001, 16:60–65. Patent Owner, however, truncates the lexicographic definition for its proposed construction without explaining the basis for the truncation. We need not determine whether the alteration is appropriate because we see no meaningful difference between Patent Owner’s proposed construction and the lexicographic definition vis-à-vis our analysis below. Accordingly, for the purpose of this Decision, we construe “campaign” as “a coordinated set of marketing activities.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Jones is not a coordinated set of marketing activities but only an expression to sell something. Prelim. Resp. 15. We agree with Patent Owner because Petitioner’s mapping of Jones’s offers to “campaigns” is inconsistent with our construction of “campaign” as “a coordinated set of marketing activities.” See supra § III.B. Petitioner does not identify any disclosure in Jones or provide any reasoning suggesting that an offer in Jones is a coordinated set of marketing activities. As such, Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that Jones discloses selectively generating and storing a campaign population. Furthermore, even if we discounted the lexicographic definition, Petitioner does not explain adequately why an offer in Jones would be a “campaign” under the ordinary meaning of the term. Instead, Petitioner merely equates Jones’s offers to campaigns with repeated parenthetical references. Pet. 14–16. Petitioner argues that Jones discloses developing offers to be marketed to consumers (id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:66–7:1)) and that the offers are “geared to an individual consumer and presented over 3:39–41)).7 These disclosures may indicate that Jones’s offers could be considered a form of marketing, but Petitioner still fails to explain sufficiently how an individual offer would comprise a marketing campaign. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Jones discloses generating and storing a campaign population that comprises a plurality of marketing campaigns. For the above reasons, we determine Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to the contention that claims 1 and 27 are unpatentable over Jones.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,236,977 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2022 · IPR2021-00680 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 9–11, 14–16, 19, 21, 32–37, 39, 47, and 49–57 are unpatentable as obvious; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
Nonecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,469,934 - Bose Corporation v. Koss CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 13, 2022 · IPR2021-00612 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 8, 10–13, 16, 18, 20–22, 25, 27, 29–31, 34, 36, 38–43, 46, 48, and 51–56 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“C. Dr. Williams’ Credibility Patent Owner argues that the testimony of Dr. Williams, Petitioner’s” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Accordingly, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that body 12” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“wireless interfaces, such that it could be used in Rezvani-446’s system.” PO Sur-reply 5. As such, Rezvani-875 would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that providing a headset with multiple wireless connections would produce undesirable battery drain. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from using two wireless connections because of increased battery usage.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,206,025 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,206,025 - Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPInstitutedPTAB · Sep 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00040 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 on all asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes a claim construction for the term “movement sensor.” Pet. 5–6. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“skill in the art to modify the device of the Allum-Raymond combination “to include Conlan’s buttons to enable the device to gather data (e.g., subject’s balance or movement) as it relates to a particular event specified by the user input buttons.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79). Petitioner also articulates reasons, supported with the testimony of Dr. Kenny, to combine the relied-upon aspects of the references with a foreseeable chance of success. Id. at 22–24 (citing Ex. 1008, 7:8–10, 16:17–19; Ex. 1010, 1:65–2:2, 4:5–57, 5:64–6:67, 9:1–15, 10:6–65, 11:58–62, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–84). At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale and evidence are sufficient to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Conlan with Allum and Raymond in the manner proposed. Furthermore, we are persuaded on this record that Petitioner has made an adequate showing that the combination of Allum, Raymond, and Conlan discloses the claimed user input.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,059,576 - Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPInstitutedPTAB · Sep 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00037 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 on all asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes a claim construction for the term “movement sensor.” Pet. 17–18. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Regarding this combination, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to implement Ono’s device, as suggested by Hutchings, with accelerometers to measure accelerations in three dimensions, rotational sensors to provide the angle of rotation along each axis of the translational coordinate.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1102, 4:21–32, 4:55–65, 5:3–16, 8:44–9:17, 9:48–12:37, Figs. 6–7; Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 62–65). Petitioner also articulates reasons, supported with the testimony of Dr. Kenny, to combine the relied-upon aspects of the references with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1102, 2:15–31, 2:45–61, 1:60–64, 3:32–44, 4:7–26, 9:48–10:18, 10:43–51, Figs. 7–9; Ex. 1101, 13:40–42, 18:28–19:6; Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 63–64). At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale and evidence are sufficient to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Ono and Hutchings in the manner proposed. Furthermore, we are persuaded on this record that Petitioner has made an adequate showing that the combination of Ono and Hutchings discloses the claimed movement sensor. In particular, Hutchings discloses unit 48 having three accelerometers that measure accelerations in three dimensions and unit 50 having three rotational sensors that measure the angle of rotation along the three coordinate axes. Ex. 1102, 8:49–59, Fig. 6. We are persuaded at this stage of the proceeding that this arrangement would have been capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained movement in any direction.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“m) Conclusion For the above reasons, we determine, based on the current record, that the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable over Ono and Hutchings.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,059,576 - Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00740 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, 15, and 17–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“discretionary denial. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5–16. The Director of the USPTO issued, on June 21, 2022, an Interim Procedure regarding the application of Fintiv factors for purposes of determining whether to exercise discretion to deny a petition. Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post- Grant Proceeding with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Interim Procedure”). The Interim Procedure states: “[T]he PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure at 3. Petitioner stipulates that “if the Board institutes the Petition on the same grounds presented, then it will not seek resolution in the district court of any ground of invalidity raised in the Petition or that could have been raised in the Petition.” Pet. 68; see also Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework, (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (addressing in a two part framework the factors presented in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III(C)(5), first paragraph)).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’411 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–13, 15, and 17– 20 of the ’411 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the invention (“POSITA” or “PHOSITA”) “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). “For the purpose of [the] Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition.” Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’411 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,197,411 - PTAB · Aug 24, 2022 · IPR2022-00399 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 18–20 on all proposed grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)InstitutedDenied
“[W]here the PTAB determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation at 4–5.3 “Compelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 4. On the current record, we agree with Petitioner that “the merits of the Petition are ‘compelling.’” Prelim. Reply 1. For the reasons explained below, we determine that the merits of Petitioner’s challenges to be compelling, and, therefore, we decline to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. Additionally, even if we were to consider the Fintiv factors in detail, we would not exercise discretion to deny institution. As noted above, the district court litigation between the parties was recently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. See Ex. 1205. That Court has scheduled an initial pretrial conference for September 22, 2022, during which the Court will set a schedule for initial preparation and enter a scheduling order for the proceeding. See Ex. 1204, 1–2. Thus, any argument that we should deny institution based on the timing of the district court litigation would be speculative at best. slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’049 patent is unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims or any underlying factual and legal issues. See TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that “there is a significant difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence at trial”). Accordingly, inter partes review is instituted as to all challenged claims and all proposed grounds of unpatentability. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60; see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); CTPG 64 (“The Board will not institute on fewer than all claims or all challenges in a petition.”). IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 18–20 of the ’049 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 49
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party proffers a definition for any claim term. Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. We note that this determination does not preclude the parties from arguing their proposed constructions of the claims during trial. Indeed, the parties are hereby given notice that claim construction, in general, is an issue to be addressed at trial. A final determination as to claim construction will be made at the close of the proceeding, after any hearing, based on all the evidence of record. The parties are expected to assert all of their claim construction arguments and evidence in the Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, or otherwise during trial, as permitted by our rules. slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have a “range of qualifications” including “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or chemical engineering and five years of work experience in the field of mechanical systems, motors, pumps, and/or oil field services.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition or offer a definition of its own. Prelim. Resp. 2. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,395,049 - Medtronic Corevalve LLC / Medtronic, Inc. v. Speyside Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00244 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Salahieh and Sands; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), at the time the ’708 or its parent applications were filed, would have had a minimum of either a medical degree and experience working as an interventional cardiologist or a Bachelor’s degree in bioengineering or mechanical engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of professional experience in the field of prosthetic cardiovascular implants. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes that determination, and that level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record. See Resp. 11 (applying Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). For purposes of this decision, the parties agree that we do not need to construe any claim terms to resolve their dispute. Resp. 12, 13 n.1; Reply 1 (“The Board need not construe any claim terms as the claims are unpatentable under Grounds 1-2.”). Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms in this decision. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability. A petitioner bears the burden of proving that a non-patent reference qualifies as a printed publication. Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“As petitioner, Blizzard had the burden to prove Lin is a printed publication.”); Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 11 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (“To prevail in a final written decision in an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication.”). The determination of whether a reference is a “printed publication” “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Whether a document qualifies as a printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations. Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the McCarthy declaration because we find Petitioner’s other evidence and arguments demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Sands was publicly available.8 Our analysis focuses on the indicia of availability on Sands and Dr. Drasler’s testimony, as outlined below.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 9,603,708 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,603,708 - Medtronic Corevalve LLC / Medtronic, Inc. v. Speyside Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00243 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–10, 16, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Lane; claims 18–22 and 24 were not shown unpatentable over the Lane and Thomas combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 7. Petitioner does not challenge Patent Owner’s modification to its proposed definition, and Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Drasler, agrees that experience in the field of prosthetic cardiovascular implants would have included experience with transcatheter prosthetic cardiovascular implants as well as delivery systems and methods used to implant such prostheses. See generally Pet. Reply; Ex. 2048, 11:6–12:1. Thus, based on our review of the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, modified as proposed by Patent Owner. We note, however, that our analysis in this proceeding would not differ if we did not adopt the modification proposed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s proposal that the distal end of the delivery catheter “houses the prosthetic” is in tension with the express language of the claim because the proposed construction suggests that “houses” necessarily means more than “at least” part of the prosthesis is disposed in the distal end. Indeed, if “houses” was not more limiting than “at least partially disposed” there would be no need to further define the spatial relationship between the distal end of the catheter and the prosthetic valve. Petitioner further argues that the Patent Owner’s construction is improper because it “wrongly limits the term to require that ‘the proximal end includes a handle that controls the deployment of the implant.’” Pet. Reply at 3 (citing PO Resp. 37–38). Petitioner asserts that the claims do not recite a handle and the ’897 patent’s “specification makes clear that a handle is a separate, optional component that is not integral to a delivery catheter: inner tubular member ‘can’ be connected to handle 907 and outer tubular member ‘can be connected’/‘attach[ed]’ to outer sheath handle 908.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 20:19–29, 26:30–33, claim 10). We again agree with Petitioner. Although the specification describes an embodiment in which proximal end 905 of inner tubular member 904 can be connected to handle 907 and proximal end 902 of outer tubular member 901 can be connected to handle 908 (Ex. 1001, 20:19–26), it is generally improper to read limitations from specific embodiments into the claims. See Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[E]ven if all of the embodiments discussed in the patent included a specific limitation, it would not be proper to import from the patent’s written description limitations that are not found in the claims themselves.” (internal quotations omitted)); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). Furthermore, at the oral hearing, Patent Owner indicated that “the proximal end includes a handle that controls the deployment of the implant” part of its proposed construction is not necessary. Tr. 61:8–14. In view of the above, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Furthermore, inventors can act as their own lexicographers if they clearly set forth a definition of a claim term other than its ordinary and customary meaning. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 677 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But any such definition must appear in the specification “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Absent any such definition, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, a definition of “introducer catheter” does not appear in the specification “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” See generally Ex. 1001.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We determine that we need not expressly construe this claim term to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,445,897 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,445,897 - Medtronic Corevalve LLC / Medtronic, Inc. v. Speyside Medical, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00239 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held that claims 1, 2, 5, 7–11, 13, 14, and 18–23 were not shown unpatentable because the combinations did not establish the claimed carrier-length limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a minimum of either a medical degree and experience working as an interventional cardiologist or a Bachelor’s degree in bioengineering or mechanical engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of professional experience in the field of prosthetic cardiovascular implants,” and “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). We adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art in the Decision on Institution, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 9–10. In its Response, Patent Owner notes that it and its expert, Dr. Vesely, apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 20. Based on our review of the record before us, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Beyond addressing this new argument, we determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim term to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Leonhardt’s cylindrical end portions change in shape and length, at least to some degree, when stent 26 is expanded or collapsed. See PO Resp. 26–28. We also credit Dr. Vesely’s uncontroverted and well-reasoned testimony on this point. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 83–85. Furthermore, we agree that the Petition and Dr. Drasler rely 8 Patent Owner actually cites to Exhibit 2013, but this is an apparent typographical error because the quoted language appears in lines 20–22 on page 195 of Exhibit 2027. We note that the quoted testimony reiterates Dr. Drasler’s other testimony that “[t]he length of the Leonhardt device would be the length of the connecting bar plus the length of the stent components at each end of the connecting bar.” Ex. 2027, 195:11–14. solely on connecting bar 29 holding the cylindrical end portions a predetermined distance apart to support the assertion that the stent’s length is substantially equal in each configuration. See Pet. 46–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134– 137. As such, Petitioner has failed to explain the effect that the changes in Leonhardt’s cylindrical end portions have on the overall length of stent 26. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Leonhardt discloses “a length of the carrier element in the moveable configuration being substantially equal to or less than a length of the carrier element in the first expanded configuration.”” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“In view of the above, we are not persuaded on the complete record before us that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Leonhardt and Gabbay. Because we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Leonhardt and Gabbay renders claim 1 obvious, we need not reach Patent Owner’s assertions regarding objective indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,377,118 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,377,118
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.