- Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SAAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00112 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 10, 11, 14, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Schima and Akamatsu; the other asserted grounds were not established.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, 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.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“sufficient basis for limiting the plain meaning of “magneto coupling.” That the ’357 patent describes embodiments using bar magnets does not serve to require the use of permanent magnets for the recited “magneto coupling.” See Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”)). Moreover, the claim language here is not so limited. 11 Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on Wampler and Bourque depend on the disclosure only of electromagnetic drives in each reference, implying that “Petitioner does not believe its own proposed narrower construction.” PO Resp. 6; see also Pet. 8 (Petitioner alleging that in the Parallel Proceeding Patent Owner “conflates ‘magneto coupling’ . . . with a stator drive using a stationary electromagnet, instead of a rotating magnet, to rotate the rotor magnet,” and asserting that as the basis for Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler and Bourque as teaching a “magneto coupling” in this proceeding (citing Ex. 1019, 9–11; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87)). distinguished “magneto coupling” drives from drives using stators. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1011, 1 (explaining that the rotating field is generated by rotating magnets in a magnetic coupling pump and by electric stator windings in a stator pump)). Petitioner does not explain how this cited reference evidences that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “magneto coupling” requires rotating permanent magnets. At most, this reference teaches an example device that provides “magneto coupling.” See Ex. 1011, 1. In sum, we agree with Patent Owner that “magneto coupling,” consistent with our Institution Decision, encompasses generating a rotating field either by rotating magnets or by an electromagnet / stator. See Inst. Dec. 22” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“ignores the readily apparent fact that the lower arrow is placed in a location that misrepresents the minimum distance between the magnetically driven rotor and the second magnetic device to suggest that Wampler teaches “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor,” as required by claim 1. Petitioner purports to justify this misrepresentation by asserting that “the vast majority of the impeller 74 is spaced significantly farther apart from the stators 90 and 94 than the magnetic pieces 88 are positioned from the stators 90 and 94.” Id. at 33–34. Claim 1 does not recite any feature based on the “vast majority” of a component and it is readily apparent from Petitioner’s own annotated version of Figure 11a that the distance from both the “motor magnets [88]” and “impeller 74” to the “circular electromagnetic stator[s] [90 and 94]” is the same. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has provided a “misleading Figure with two red arrows denoting measurement distances to illustrate its incorrect view that the second magnetic device is farther from the magnetically driven rotor than from the first magnetic device.” PO Resp. 13–15 (providing an annotated version of Wampler’s Figure 11a with an orange arrow showing that in Wampler the distances from the second magnetic device to both the rotor and the first magnetic device are the same). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to show that Wampler teaches “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor.”” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“To orient the pump in the least obtrusive position (i.e., in the human configuration, as in Figure 3), it was decided that the rotational axis of the pump’s rotor should be perpendicular to the body’s long axis. That resulted in a sharp bend in the flow before it enters the impeller. To minimize the losses in this transition, the flow is slightly accelerated through this elbow. that this type of elbow [i.e., the elbow used with Bourque’s centrifugal pump] was unnecessary,” applying Wampler to Bourque would have improved “blood flow.” Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 418–419; Ex. 1007, 402; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76). As explained above, Wampler does not teach that “this type of elbow” was unnecessary. Bourque uses a centrifugal pump with an additional elbow specifically so that the centrifugal pump may be oriented “in the least obtrusive position.” Ex. 1007, 402. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion that eliminating the elbow from Bourque would improve “blood flow.” Mr. Crosby’s declaration provides no additional explanation or support to show how “blood flow” would have been improved. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 419. Nor does Mr. Crosby address the fact that Bourque expressly states that “flow is slightly accelerated” through the elbow to “minimize losses in this transition.” Ex. 1007, 402. Eliminating the elbow from Bourque, as Petitioner and Mr. Crosby propose, would mean the pump could no longer be placed in “the least obtrusive position” according to Bourque and there is no persuasive evidence that such a modification would improve blood flow.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 11,351,357 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,351,357 - Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SAAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00113 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under §103 over Schima and Akamatsu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reasons discussed above. See supra Section III.D.3. Accordingly, because Petitioner’s contentions are premised on an unsupported claim construction that we reject, Petitioner fails to show how Wampler teaches or suggests “a magnetically driven rotor . . . axially adjacent to a first magnet device,” as required by claim 1, as well as by claims 2–5, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17, which depend from claim 1. In its Reply, Petitioner suggests that “[u]nder [Patent Owner’s] construction from the [Patent Owner Response], Wampler also teaches or suggests this limitation,” because Patent Owner “concedes that ‘axially adjacent’ components ‘have positioning that is next to one another, perhaps touching or sharing a common side, when measured along the axis.’” Pet. Reply 11 (citing PO Resp. 17). Petitioner mischaracterizes Patent Owner’s arguments and ignores Patent Owner’s showing that “axially adjacent” components are “distinct from components that are aligned with one another such that they overlap or occupy the same portion of an axis” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“endeavor of the ’415 patent (i.e., “[a] method and device to assist the performance of a heart with at least one pump that is formed as a rotary pump and driven via magneto coupling”). See Ex. 1001, code (57); Ex. 1005 code (57); Ex. 1006, 1. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Schima and Akamatsu are analogous art to the ’415 patent.” slip op. at 71
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“endeavor of the ’415 patent (i.e., “[a] method and device to assist the performance of a heart with at least one pump that is formed as a rotary pump and driven via magneto coupling”). See Ex. 1001, code (57); Ex. 1005 code (57); Ex. 1006, 1. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Schima and Akamatsu are analogous art to the ’415 patent.” slip op. at 71
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“not identified a persuasive basis under any of the Federal Rules of Evidence for the exclusion of evidence in this proceeding and deny the Motion.” slip op. at 78
Patent outcomesUS 11,376,415 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,376,415 - First Quality Retail Services, LLC / First Quality Consumer Products, LLC et al. v. Essity Hygiene And Health ABAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2024-01487 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 20–22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable, based on anticipation by Bergstrom and obviousness over the stated combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. 9–10. In its Response, Patent Owner cites to Petitioner’s definition and states that Patent Owner “applies Petitioners’ definition.” PO Resp. 7. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’138 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We begin our analysis with the language of the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312; see also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 874–875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“There is a ‘heavy presumption’ that the terms used in the claims ‘mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.’”). Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “said fluid flow control structure being a layered structure comprising a non-perforated fibrous polymeric layer and a first perforated polymeric layer.” Ex. 1001, 13:62–64 (limitation [1h]). The plain language of claim 1 does not address additional properties of the perforated polymeric layer; the language of the dependent claims, however, imposes additional limitations on the properties of the perforated polymeric layer such as a particular basis weight (claim 2), a particular makeup (claim 3), a particular aperture size (claim 7), a particular open area (claim 8), and that it “is a three-dimensionally formed layer having penetrating apertures extending from a first surface of the first perforated polymeric layer towards a second surface of the first perforated polymeric layer and forming protrusions on said second surface” (claim 4). The dependent claims’ additional language indicates that the term “perforated” within the term “perforated polymeric layer” in claim 1 is not limited in the manner asserted by Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“layer pierced through with holes or apertures,” we are persuaded that Petitioner meets its burden as to this limitation. Petitioner argues that under our construction, Bergstrom’s express disclosure of forming element 60, and Bergstrom’s explanation of the properties of forming element 60, meets the claimed “perforated polymeric layer” limitation. Pet. 38–41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 114–117). Even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, Petitioner argues, forming element 60 would also allow free flow of liquid bodily waste. Pet. Reply 3– 4 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 20–23). Importantly, Bergstrom expressly discloses: “suitable materials for the forming element 60 are plastic films, perforated plastic films and reinforced tissue or reinforced nonwoven materials.” Ex. 1004, 10:1–4. This express disclosure is clear. Even though the forming element 60 in Bergstrom might be “typically” liquid-impermeable (Ex. 1004, 9:24–30), that does not preclude a layer that is perforated, particularly where Bergstrom expressly discloses a perforated plastic film as one of the possibilities for forming element 60. Ex. 1004, 10:1–4. Additionally, although Patent Owner focuses on Bergstrom’s disclosure that forming element 60 is “typically liquid-impermeable” (PO Resp. 58–60; Ex. 1004, 9:24–30), we do not view Bergstrom’s use of the word “typically” as mandating that the forming element always be liquid impermeable. We agree that the word “typically” does not mean “always” and that such a reading would render “typically” superfluous. Pet. Reply. 5. We do not find any ambiguity in Bergstrom’s disclosure regarding possible use of perforated plastic films for its forming element 60; whether or not the forming element 60 provides other functions (like stiffness) does not dictate whether it may also be perforated, or be part of a fluid flow control structure. On this point, we credit Petitioner’s arguments and explanation, as supported by Dr. Pourdeyhimi’s testimony. Pet. Reply 6–7; Ex. 1021 ¶ 27–28 (“components of absorbent articles could be multifunctional”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“from the start” (PO Resp. 29), and that “using all or part of [Glaug’s] fluid-acquisition system in place of [Nakazawa’s] diffusion sheet would be antithetical to the teachings of both references” (id. at 35), we agree that the proposed combination of Nakazawa’s structure with the layers of Glaug is sufficiently motivated and reasonably expected to result in a successful article, for the reasons articulated by Petitioner. See, e.g., Pet. 59–65; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 176–192. Namely, although fluid may flow in both Z directions in Nakazawa (PO Resp. 30), that does not foreclose the combination with Glaug in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See generally Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 176–192; see id. ¶ 184 (detailing the mechanics of the proposed combinations), ¶¶ 188–191 (discussing motivation to combine), ¶ 192 (discussing reasonable expectation of success). The combination can be achieved “either by adding the lower acquisition layer 64 [of Glaug] to diffusion sheet 63 [of Nakazawa], or by replacing diffusion sheet 63 [of Nakazawa] with the two-layer fluid acquisition system 34 [of Glaug],” and as persuasively explained by Dr. Pourdeyhimi, the arrangement constitutes a “fluid flow control structure.” See Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 45–47. Additionally, the diffusion sheet in Nakazawa can be made from the same material as used in Glaug, namely, AquiDry™. Id. ¶¶ 53–55; see also Tr. 17:25–18:3 (“although Glaug does not specify the name AquiDry in its disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert testified that it’s his understanding that Glaug is discussing the AquiDry material, the same material that is in Nakazawa . . . . they disclose using the same material, and Nakazawa says this material work[s]”). When asked if Patent Owner’s expert had any concerns that AquiDry was not the same as between Nakazawa and Glaug, Patent Owner’s counsel replied “They are the same, Your Honor. And we embrace that.” Tr. 46:8–12; see also id. at 58:19 (Petitioner’s counsel commenting about Patent Owner’s counsel: “they agree, AquiDry is used in both Nakazawa and Glaug”). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that Nakazawa’s diffusion sheet and Glaug’s fluid acquisition layer have different purposes because Nakazawa’s diffusion sheet allegedly must promote fluid flow in the Z-directions, both toward and away from the body (PO Resp. 29–37; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 26–28, 30– 35)) is not clearly supported by Nakazawa, and is also contravened by the shared disclosure of Nakazawa and Glaug as to the composition of the disputed layer. We have reviewed the complete record, including Patent Owner’s and Mr. Sheldon’s assertions that Nakazawa requires promoting fluid flow in both Z-directions (see id.), but find that Petitioner carries its burden to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Nakazawa and Glaug with a reasonable expectation of success. On this complete record, Petitioner explains sufficiently why and how a person of ordinary skill would modify Nakazawa’s diffusion sheet, i.e., to use Glaug’s fluid acquisition system, or the lower non-perforated layer of its fluid acquisition system, in Nakazawa, and Petitioner provides well-supported reasons for doing so.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 9,308,138 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,308,138 - Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 11, 2026 · IPR2024-00635 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
The majority held claims 1–14 unpatentable under §103 over Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art; one judge dissented as to claims 8, 9, 12, and 13.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) with respect to the subject matter of the ’698 patent at the time of the priority date, March 11, 2004, would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, or other technical training in product design or equivalent work experience. This person would also possess at least one year of experience in developing and/or evaluating mechanical aspects of fluid systems. I consider myself a person of ordinary skill in the art under this definition. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Patent Owner argues: A POSITA in the field to which the ’698 Patent is directed would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering or a related field or, as a substitute, at least two years of work or research experience in the design or development of toilet products, parts, and accessories. PO Resp. 6. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSITA, as it is consistent with the ’698 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, we see no material difference between the level of skill proposed by Patent Owner and that proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Cameron such that our determinations would be the same under either proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that, because each of the Flow Limitations relate to water flow through the bowl fill valve, these limitations require adjusting the flow rate of water exiting the flow valve. PO Resp. 15–17 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 97); See also PO Sur-Reply 7. Petitioner responds that “the claim language of the ’698 Patent discusses adjusting the water flow, not specifically the ‘flow rate.’” Pet. Reply 13. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner, and the conclusory testimony of Mr. Jobin (Ex. 2013 ¶ 97), that because the Flow Limitations “relate” to water flow through the bowl fill valve, that this necessarily means that the flow rate must be adjusted. As Petitioner points out, neither the term “flowrate” nor any similar term appears in any of the Flow Limitations. Thus, the plain language of the Flow Limitations requires that, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the claim limitation should not be restricted to adjustments to “flow rate.”” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that Limitations 8B and 12B are directed to the configuration or structure of the bowl fill valve outlet port. Pet. Reply 2–4. According to Petitioner, because Limitations 8B and 12B do recite an overflow tube, the overflow tube is not separately claimed and is recited solely to define the function of the outlet port on the bowl fill valve. Id. at 3. Petitioner, thus, argues that an overflow tube is not separately claimed as a structural element, and that, to meet Limitations 8B and 12B, it is sufficient to show that the prior art discloses a bowl fill valve with an outlet port that is configured to attach directly to a tube that provides water from the outlet port to an overflow tube. Id. at 4. In contrast, Patent Owner argues that Limitations 8B and 12B separately claim the overflow tube, and that Petitioner must show that the prior art discloses a tube that transfers water from the bowl fill valve outlet port to the toilet tank overflow tube. PO Resp. 10–11; PO Sur-reply 2–3. We disagree with Patent Owner, because claims 8 and 12, on their face, require “bowl fill valve outlet port,” but do not require or recite an “overflow tube” as an element of the claimed “bowl fill valve.” When a structure is claimed as “configured to” perform a particular function, it generally requires a structure that is designed to perform the particular function claimed, i.e., it requires more than the mere capability of performing that function. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim language including the phrase “adapted to” is to be construed consistent with “configured to” language and requires that the structure must be “designed or configured to accomplish the specified objective, not simply that [it] can be made to serve that purpose.”); see also In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The plain language of Limitations 8B and 12B is clearly directed to the configuration of the bowl fill valve outlet port, in that these limitations recite “a bowl fill valve outlet port configured to.”8 The recited function is “attach directly to a tube that provides water from the bowl fill valve outlet port to an overflow tube.” The overflow tube is recited as part of the function in a clause identifying the tube to which the bowl fill valve outlet port is configured to attached — “that provides water from the bowl fill valve outlet port to an overflow tube.” The overflow tube, thus, is recited as part of the function defining the required structure of the bowl fill outlet port and is not separately claimed.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“1. Petitioner’s Contentions Petitioner contends that the combination of Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art teaches all of the limitations of claims 1–14 and provides a mapping showing where each claim limitation is found in the prior art. Pet. 21–59. We have reviewed the Petition’s mapping and determine that the Petition sufficiently shows that each limitation of claims 1–14 is disclosed by the combination of Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art. Further, we have reviewed Petitioner’s rationale for combining the prior art and determine that the Petition sufficiently shows that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,934,698 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,934,698 - Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-00634 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 8–13, 15, 16, and 19–24 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho, with claims 16 and 19 also relying on the Quick Connection Art; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner proposes that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] in the field to which the ’105 Patent is directed would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering or a related field or, as a substitute, at least two years of work or” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of “integrally molded with” as “molded together as a single structure.” Paper 21, 15.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that: a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the proposed modification, nor does the Petition include any analysis regarding why a POSITA would be motivated to move from a vertical extended portion to a radial extended portion. Indeed, a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar as it introduces another sudden directional change into the fluid flow system. PO Resp. 58–59 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 242).” slip op. at 32
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the ’105 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 63–65; PO Sur-reply 26–29. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 of the bowl fill valve 109, the flow of water through the bowl fill valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288. Further, the ’606 Application states: The bowl fill valve 109 may be, for example, a ball valve, a gate valve, a globe valve, a plug valve, a diaphragm valve, a butterfly valve, a needle valve, a sliding gate, a quick turn valve, a knife valve or any other appropriate type of valve as can be appreciated by those with ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 9,103,105 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,103,105 - Tommy John, Inc. v. Pakage Apparel, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 12, 2026 · IPR2024-01163 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–13, 15, and 16 unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the identified combinations of Kitsch, Brocks, and Carrillo.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“21; 4:1:13–22. Accordingly, Kitsch and Brocks have similar goals, with respect to formation of a secure pouch for containing the genitals, for which each reference discloses a distinct technical solution. Thus, a POSITA would have regarded the application of Brocks’ familiar and effective gathering technique to Kitsch’s side panels as a viable approach for improving a supportive pouch, and would have expected such combination of teachings to achieve the structural benefit used in Brocks. See Pet. 25–27 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68–72). In other words, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation that the combination of Kitsch and Brocks, as discussed above, would result in what is recited in limitation 1[g].” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 10,834,974 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,834,974 - 3d Diagnostix, Inc. v. Watson Guide IP, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · PGR2024-00040 · APJ James A Tartal · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under § 103, including over Llop ’126 and Sichuan, and over Llop ’126, Sichuan, and Scherer for claims 5, 6, and 12.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest priority date of the ’209 patent “would at least have had a doctoral degree in dentistry and at least three to four years of experience working with guided dental surgery for installing dental implants and prostheses.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 4. Based on our review of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, because it is supported by the evidence of record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’209 patent and in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“1. “drill guide” and “fixation base” Petitioner contends that the claim terms “drill guide” and “fixation base” require construction “to resolve certain of the unpatentability grounds presented.” Pet. 13–14. In particular, Petitioner proposes that “drill guide” means “drill guide made from metal or metallic alloy without traditional plastic or acrylic,” and that “fixation base” means “fixation base made from metal, metallic alloy or other strong material without traditional plastic or acrylic.” Id. According to Petitioner, the Specification “teaches that the composition of the drill guide is ‘a metal or metallic alloy,’” and provides no other alternatives. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:35–36). Petitioner similarly alleges that “fixation base” is described as “being fabricated from a metal, metal alloy, or other strong material,” and that “traditional plastic or acrylic” is excluded in light of disclosures in a provisional application. Id. at 21–24. According to Petitioner, its proposed constructions should be adopted “based on disclaimer of claim scope in the provisional application incorporated into the [’209] patent specification.” Id. at 14–24. Patent Owner contends that we need not address the constructions proposed by Petitioner because the issues addressed by Petitioner’s proposed constructions only concern allegations of unpatentability directed to claims 11 and 13, which Patent Owner disclaimed. Resp. 4–5; Disclaimer 1. In Reply, Petitioner argues that its proposed constructions are relevant to Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness, including the alleged nexus. Reply 18–19 n.3. In light of our analysis below, because no determination in this Decision turns on whether we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions of “drill guide” and “fixation base,” we find that no express construction of these terms is required. 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 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“substitution of the word ‘enclose’ for the term ‘surround.’” Sur-reply 6. We noted in the Institution Decision that “construing the claim term ‘surround’ to mean ‘enclose’ does not further inform or clarify to a person of ordinary skill in the art what is encompassed by the claim limitation.” Dec. 15. We reach the same conclusion here on the full record and find no basis to rewrite the Challenged Claims to replace “surround” with “enclose.” To the extent Patent Owner can be understood to suggest that we import additional limitations into the claims based on the exemplary figures in the ’209 patent, we decline to do so. Regardless, given the recognition by the Parties that “surround” and “enclose” are synonymous, our determinations in this Decision would have been the same had we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition of “surround” to mean “enclose.” Further, with regard to the claim language “configured and dimensioned to surround at least a portion of the teeth of the patient,” Patent Owner proposes construing “a portion of the teeth” as “at least some teeth.” Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 44). Patent Owner, however, offers no sufficient explanation in its Response to explain how why a “portion of the teeth” means “at least some teeth.” The Specification does not provide an explicit definition of “a portion of the teeth” and does not suggest an intention to use a meaning of the term “a portion of the teeth” that is particular to the ’209 patent. To the extent Patent Owner can be understood to imply that we should import additional limitations into the Challenged Claims based on the exemplary figures in the ’209 patent, we decline to do so. For that reason, alone, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“38; Sur-reply 9–10. First, Patent Owner argues that Sichuan is non-analogous art. Resp. 34–38. “To be considered within the prior art for purposes of the obviousness analysis, a reference must be analogous.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 11,806,209 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,806,209 - Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC / Solaris Oilfield Site Services Personnel, LLC v. Masaba, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01179 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 are unpatentable under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Waldner, Dynatek, and additional references; the Board cancelled all challenged claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Also, to the extent Masaba relies on extrinsic expert testimony, we note that Masaba’s expert cites absolutely no support for his understanding of the claims, much less explains why we should adopt his understanding over the plain and ordinary meaning of “conveying aggregate” and “moving aggregate.” See Ex. 2004 ¶ 34. Absent supporting citations, such extrinsic testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. As such, we reject the notion that Waldner’s discharge chute member 242 is not a conveyor “for conveying aggregate” or “for moving aggregate,” as required by claim elements 1[h] and 1[i].” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that Dr. Durham does not possess the necessary level of skill in the art to qualify as an expert in this case. Looking at the specification of the ’689 patent and the prior art of record, we think Masaba sets the bar too high. We acknowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art should have some education and/or experience in the mechanical art of conveying aggregate materials, but we do not think opining on the ’689 patent and asserted prior art necessarily requires that person to have the amount of education and experience that Masaba advocates. The ’689 patent relates generally to an “aggregate transferring system for receiving aggregate from a vehicle and elevating the aggregate to a higher vertical level for deposit into, for example, a silo.” Ex. 1001, 1:15– 18. And, as described in the ’689 patent and discussed later, the transferring system is an assembly of known types of conveyors, such as a belly-dump truck conveyor, a bucket elevator, and an articulated belt conveyor, for transferring the aggregate horizontally and vertically from a belly-dump truck to the discharge point, such as a silo. Without doubt, Dr. Durham has enough education and experience to reliably opine on the combination of known parts.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction needed
“We reject this argument for several reasons. First, nowhere does the plain language of the claims specify how the aggregate is conveyed or moved from the conveyor extension assembly’s inlet to its outlet, be it passively by means of gravity or actively by means of a conveyor belt. Instead, the claims simply use those verbs according to their plain and ordinary meaning, which is “to transfer or deliver” or “to cause to go or pass” from one place to another. See Ex. 3001, 253 (defining “convey”), 760 (defining “move”).10 Second, the specification of the ’689 patent similarly uses these terms in a plain and ordinary sense, without ever attributing to them some sort of special meaning. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:9–12 (“The apparatus 10 is suitable for performing the transfer of aggregate from 10 We reference the original pagination of the dictionary in which these definitions appear. one location to another, such as, for example, from a vehicle carrying the aggregate to a silo 1 for storing the aggregate.”). The ’689 patent specification also makes clear that active conveyance of the aggregate is an option and not a requirement of the claimed invention, stating that the conveyor extension assembly “may further include a conveyor belt 150.” Ex. 1001, 10:60–66 (emphasis added). Limiting claim elements 1[h] and 1[i] to a device “for actively conveying” or “for actively moving aggregate” would improperly import limitations from the specification into the claims. Thus, based on the intrinsic evidence, we determine that claim elements 1h and 1k are properly construed to encompass passive and/or active movement of the aggregate via the conveyor extension assembly.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“Owner asserts” that two claim terms—“unloader structure” and “trailer structure”—should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Solaris submits an express construction detailing the corresponding structure in the specification for performing the recited function of the claimed unloader and trailer structures. See id. at 24–25. Only in disputing Solaris’s Ground 3 does Masaba advocate that the claim term “trailer structure” should be construed under § 112(f), and then only in conjunction with dependent claims 3 and 21. See PO Resp. 58. As such, we address Masaba’s proposed construction in our analysis of Ground 3. We now turn to Solaris’s grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 11,780,689 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,780,689 - Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00749 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Gallagher and Schofield; claims 5–7 and 14–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 21. 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. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As a general rule, unless the steps of a method claim actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation modified). “However, a claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” Id. (cleaned up). “[O]rdinarily in process claims steps taken concurrently are the equivalent of steps taken successively.” In re White, 39 F.2d 974, 975 (CCPA 1930); see also Cybersettle, 243 F. App’x. at 609 (finding “the step of calculating the differences between demands and offers can occur concurrently with the [next enumerated step of] receipt of multiple demands and offers” and “the testing step of ‘determining whether any of the differences fall within the predetermined settlement range’ may occur concurrently with the receipt and comparison of the bids” (citation modified)). This is especially true here, given that the recitations at issue are functional language in an apparatus (system) claim. We further agree with Petitioner that the ’328 patent discloses such concurrent performance of these steps: Either concurrent with or subsequent to the identification of road signs 30 and generation of asset management database 24, the computer processor 22 evaluates that portion 32 of each video frame or image that depicts a road sign 30 to determine a set of color values 40, 42 for each of a plurality of colors on the road sign 32. A retroreflectivity value is generated for each color portion 34, 36 on each frame of the tagged videostream 20 containing the road sign 30 that represents a different color value 40, 42. slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner is correct to the extent that it need not show that “the features of [Schofield] may be bodily incorporated into the structure of [Gallagher],” but Petitioner must prove that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.” Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381. For claim 9, Petitioner proposes to modify Gallagher’s system to use “Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within a field of view” in Gallagher’s system. Pet. 23. Thus, Petitioner’s combination does not require the combination of Gallagher’s and Schofield’s sensors into a single system, and Patent Owner’s “sensor fusion” argument is inapposite. See Tr. 48:8–49:6 (Patent Owner’s counsel confirming that the problem of “sensor fusion” stems from combining disparate sensors in a single system). As noted above, Schofield teaches considering the relative location of the light source in determining whether the light source is from headlights or taillights (that is, an object of interest). See Ex. 1006, 9:26–35. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use this teaching in Gallagher’s device to help distinguish between road markers that are arranged side-by-side and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77 (“[An ordinarily skilled artisan] would have seen Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within the field of view as advantageous because it would have allowed Gallagher’s computer to associate the measured reflectance level with the appropriate road marker.”), 79 (“[I]mplementing this determination would have required [an ordinarily skilled artisan] to implement only conventional techniques of image processing (identifying a location of a particular pixel within an array), which was well known by [an ordinarily skilled artisan], to predictably yield the result of the location within a field of view indicating an intensity value associated with a road marker. Given that Schofield and Gallagher disclose similar types of arrays, this combination would have merely required the use of Schofield’s known technique to improve Gallagher’s similar device in the same way.”).” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable
“A reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,328 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,328 - Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01111 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Gallagher and Schofield; claims 5–7 and 14–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 21. 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. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction needed
“As a general rule, unless the steps of a method claim actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation modified). “However, a claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” Id. (cleaned up). “[O]rdinarily in process claims steps taken concurrently are the equivalent of steps taken successively.” In re White, 39 F.2d 974, 975 (CCPA 1930); see also Cybersettle, 243 F. App’x. at 609 (finding “the step of calculating the differences between demands and offers can occur concurrently with the [next enumerated step of] receipt of multiple demands and offers” and “the testing step of ‘determining whether any of the differences fall within the predetermined settlement range’ may occur concurrently with the receipt and comparison of the bids” (citation modified)). This is especially true here, given that the recitations at issue are functional language in an apparatus (system) claim. We further agree with Petitioner that the ’328 patent discloses such concurrent performance of these steps: Either concurrent with or subsequent to the identification of road signs 30 and generation of asset management database 24, the computer processor 22 evaluates that portion 32 of each video frame or image that depicts a road sign 30 to determine a set of color values 40, 42 for each of a plurality of colors on the road sign 32. A retroreflectivity value is generated for each color portion 34, 36 on each frame of the tagged videostream 20 containing the road sign 30 that represents a different color value 40, 42. Ex. 1001, 5:52–60. Thus, the ’328 patent discloses concurrently detecting objects of interest (road signs) and determining whether the object of interest has a particular color value. slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner is correct to the extent that it need not show that “the features of [Schofield] may be bodily incorporated into the structure of [Gallagher],” but Petitioner must prove that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.” Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381. For claim 9, Petitioner proposes to modify Gallagher’s system to use “Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within a field of view” in Gallagher’s system. Pet. 23. Thus, Petitioner’s combination does not require the combination of Gallagher’s and Schofield’s sensors into a single system, and Patent Owner’s “sensor fusion” argument is inapposite. See Tr. 48:8–49:6 (Patent Owner’s counsel confirming that the problem of “sensor fusion” stems from combining disparate sensors in a single system). As noted above, Schofield teaches considering the relative location of the light source in determining whether the light source is from headlights or taillights (that is, an object of interest). See Ex. 1006, 9:26–35. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use this teaching in Gallagher’s device to help distinguish between road markers that are arranged side-by-side and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77 (“[An ordinarily skilled artisan] would have seen Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within the field of view as advantageous because it would have allowed Gallagher’s computer to associate the measured reflectance level with the appropriate road marker.”), 79 (“[I]mplementing this determination would have required [an ordinarily skilled artisan] to implement only conventional techniques of image processing (identifying a location of a particular pixel within an array), which was well known by [an ordinarily skilled artisan], to predictably yield the result of the location within a field of view indicating an intensity value associated with a road marker. Given that Schofield and Gallagher disclose similar types of arrays, this combination would have merely required the use of Schofield’s known technique to improve Gallagher’s similar device in the same way.”).” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther
“The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 21. 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. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,328 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,328
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.