- PTAB · May 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00032 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 are obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“At least because of the material differences in Ferro compared to Hafner ’174 and the reliance on Donnelly and Letendre, which were not before the Office, we find that the same or substantially the same art was not previously presented to the Office.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We disagree with Patent Owner. It is true that Oyobe focuses on alerting a vehicle user to a low state of charge by raising a physical indicator on the exterior of the vehicle (i.e., the “informing apparatus 102) when the battery is low. Ex. 1005 ¶ 40. Oyobe explains: even in such a case where the vehicle user exit from the vehicle without checking the SOC of main battery B on the console panel, informing apparatus 102 disposed at a location where it can easily be seen outside the vehicle by the vehicle user allows the vehicle user to easily recognize the necessity of charging main battery B. Id. However, Oyobe’s focus on raising a physical indicator on the vehicle as a reminder does not detract from Oyobe’s unambiguous disclosure that its vehicle also includes position detecting apparatus 108 that uses wireless communication to “sense that the vehicle is parked at the location where charging equipment is installed.” Id. ¶ 142. Oyobe’s ability to sense whether a vehicle is parked next to a charger allows Oyobe’s system to remind the user to charge the battery by raising low battery indicator 102 while the vehicle is located next to a charger but not “where charging cannot be performed.” Id. ¶¶ 143–145. Accordingly, regardless of the reason that Oyobe provides for including its vehicle position detecting apparatus, Oyobe undeniably describes a vehicle sensor that can provide “information indicative of a presence of an electric vehicle in a parking space” near a charging station. And, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently explained why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Oyobe’s sensor in Ferro’s electric vehicle to “advantageously allows a user to instruct charging without exiting the vehicle and physically interacting with a charging station.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150–152).” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner violates Rule 42.6(a)(3) by improperly incorporating arguments from Mr. Andrews’s Declaration into the Petition to establish that Oyobe teaches sensing the presence of a vehicle in a “parking space” as recited in limitation 1e. Prelim. Resp. 42–43 (citing Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–181)). Patent Owner contends that Mr. Andrews’s citation of four references that are not expressly cited in the Petition, Exhibits 1018, 1053, 1057, and 1059, implicitly demonstrates that the Petition incorporates arguments by reference. Id. Not only do we find Petitioner’s reliance on Mr. Andrews’s testimony to be persuasive, but we also find that Mr. Andrews’s citations to Exhibits 1018, 1053, 1057, and 1059 provide strong support for his testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that Oyobe teaches that its vehicle is in a parking space when Oyobe’s apparatus 108 detects that “the vehicle is parked” near charging equipment. Far from improperly incorporating arguments by reference, we find Mr. Andrews’s citation to objective evidence to support his opinions on how an ordinarily skilled artisan would read Oyobe’s disclosure to be preferred and highly persuasive.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,563,338 - Google LLC v. Ecofactor, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · May 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00097 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Hildebrand alone or with Shah.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner further identifies that Shah similarly teaches calculating operational efficiency values for an HVAC system and using these values “to monitor the integrity of the thermal system.” Id. at 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1006, 4:63–5:10). Petitioner matches these and other teachings in combination with Hildebrand to each of the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 17– 10:32–36, 11:59–61, 12:2–20, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–140). Petitioner also provides an extensive discussion of the reasons to combine Shah with the system of Hildebrand, such as to avoid being limited, like Hildebrand, to comparisons of system efficiencies between time periods with the same outside temperature. Id. at 19; see also id. at 18–24. We have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence and determine that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable over Hildebrand alone or in combination with Shah.3” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe the claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning 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). No terms need to be expressly construed at this time.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,835,394 - Bazooka-Farmstar, LLC v. Nuhn Industries Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00004 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–40 are unpatentable as obvious over Puck and Bryham; the revised contingent motion to amend proposing claims 41–80 is denied as those claims are unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Nuhn states that “[t]he only conclusion I can draw from the Stutsman mechanic’s explanation is that he understood Bazooka was copying Nuhn’s patented Lagoon Crawler and felt uneasy about being involved in Bazooka’s activities.” Ex. 2083 ¶ 75. However, Mr. Nuhn’s unsubstantiated conclusion is not persuasive evidence.” slip op. at 61
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“4. Motivation to Combine Puck and Bryham Petitioner asserts that “Puck describes a cumbersome, manual process” slip op. at 39
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Nuhn states that “[t]he only conclusion I can draw from the Stutsman mechanic’s explanation is that he understood Bazooka was copying Nuhn’s patented Lagoon Crawler and felt uneasy about being involved in Bazooka’s activities.” Ex. 2083 ¶ 75. However, Mr. Nuhn’s unsubstantiated conclusion is not persuasive evidence.” slip op. at 61
Patent outcomesUS 11,491,835 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,491,835 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01238 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 14–16 would have been obvious over Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on the record before us, Petitioner does not set forth sufficient argument and evidence to demonstrate that the combined teachings of Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith teach or suggest “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity,” as recited in claim 14. Accordingly, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the subject matter of independent claim 14 would have been obvious over Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith. Due to the dependency of claims 15 and 16 from claim 14, and for the same reasons as those explained above addressing claim 1, based on the record before us Petitioner does not set forth sufficient argument and evidence to demonstrate that the combination of Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 15 and 16. Accordingly, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the subject matter of dependent claims 15 and 16 would have been obvious over Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We find that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Ashwood Smith discloses, teaches, or suggests “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of a working entity and a protection entity,” as required by claim 14. Petitioner implicitly construes “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity” to require “calculat[ing] the probability of concurrent failure of the paths.” Pet. 77; see also id. (“calculating such probability for two paths”), 78 (also implicitly construing “digital logic . . . configured to determine an entity cost of said plurality of transport entity descriptors” to require “cost calculation”). We agree with Petitioner’s implicit construction because it is consistent with the claim language and the ’821 Patent Specification which discloses a simultaneous failure probability (SFP) function (Eq. 1) and SFP values calculated by a concurrent failure probability matrix. See Ex. 1001, 3:44–47, 6:5–11, 6:39–40. Similar to Doshi’s description of the probability of failure in terms of “very insignificant” (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 40), Petitioner’s cited disclosures of Ashwood Smith describe the probability of failure at a common point in terms of “fairly low” (see Ex. 1037, 3:21–23) “highly unlikely” (see Ex. 1037, 10:32), and “below a certain level” (see Ex. 1037, 11:7–8). Although Petitioner asserts that Ashwood Smith’s method determines the probability of failure at a common point between two paths (see Pet. 67), the teachings of Ashwood Smith cited by Petitioner do not support a finding that Ashwood Smith discloses, teaches, or suggests “digital logic . . . configured to determine the probability of concurrent failure,” as implicitly construed by Petitioner to require calculating a probability of concurrent failure of a working entity and a protection entity. Petitioner also cites Ashwood Smith’s disclosure suggesting a possible refinement to the disclosed method that would take into account the actual probability of failure at a common point shared by two or more working paths. See Ex. 1037, 10:21–24. Petitioner, however, does not direct us to any disclosure in Ashwood of digital logic configured to determine or calculate the probability of failure at a common point. See Pet. 66–69, 74–78. Instead, Petitioner overlooks Ashwood Smith’s disclosure that the probability of failure at a common point is allocated (i.e., distributed, assigned, given out) by the data transport network operator. See Ex. 1037, 11:4–6. This allocation of failure probability by the data transport operator is similar to the ’821 Patent Specification’s disclosure that “[s]pan failure probabilities may be assigned, for example, manually by a network operator based on network knowledge” and “[n]ode failure probabilities may be configured by the operator, typically based on vendor-provided mean time between failure (MTBF) parameters, and on infrastructure failure probability, for example, power failure probability.” Ex. 1001, 6:20–23, 6:29–33. We also give little weight to Petitioner’s witness Dr. Min’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 234–237) that Ashwood Smith teaches determining a probability of concurrent failure of two paths because, for the same reasons, it is not supported by an underlying factual basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“IPR2023–00402, we find that Doshi does not disclose, teach, or suggest “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity,” as required by claim 14. Although Doshi discloses selecting a subset of path pairs based on cost (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 144, Fig. 11), and that disjoint path pairs may have very insignificant probability of failure, Petitioner does not direct us to where Doshi discloses, teaches, or suggests “digital logic . . . configured determine the probability of concurrent failure of the primary path and the restoration path.” See Pet. 67, 74–76. We also give little weight to Petitioner’s witness Dr. Min’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 255) that determining path disjointedness corresponds to determining a probability of concurrent failure is entitled to little weight because, for the same reasons, it is not supported by an underlying factual basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). For example, Petitioner does not provide a factual basis for equating a determination of path disjointedness (e.g., strictly disjoint, partially disjoint) with a determination of the probability of concurrent failure of the primary and restoration path. We also give little weight to Dr. Min’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 258) that Doshi’s disclosure of selection logic configured to perform the method of Figure 11 teaches logic configured to determine probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity because it also is not supported by an underlying factual basis. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256–258; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 142–145; Fig. 11.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(‘POSITA’) would have had a working knowledge of network communications and multiprotocol label switching (‘MPLS’) techniques available at the time.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of network communications and been knowledgeable regarding MPLS techniques.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Patent Owner does not address the skill level of a person of ordinary of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For the purpose of determining whether to institute trial, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’821 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,830,821 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01237 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–31 under § 325(d), finding the same art and arguments had been presented in the Cisco IPR and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“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 [the] 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.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,545,740 - Mastercard Incorporated And Mastercard International Incorporated v. Ov Loop, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01289 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Collinge; the Board did not reach the anticipation grounds based on Collinge or the grounds based on Fiske.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in electrical and computer engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience in the field of secure payment system,” and that “[a]dditional education in the field could be substituted for industry experience, and vice versa.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner does not suggest that its proposed level of ordinary skill materially differs from the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See id. We find, on the current record, that the ’171 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’171 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We would have reached the same conclusions in this Decision had we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In light of the lack of any dispute over the Second Construction, a construction we find consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, we need not resolve whether the claim language also encompasses Petitioner’s First Construction. Moreover, as explained below, we find Collinge renders obvious the subject matter of the limitation under either construction. See infra Section III.D.5. For the foregoing reasons, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. 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 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because here Petitioner is not relying on some other disclosure to fill a missing limitation absent from Collinge, but is instead relying only on Collinge and the knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art would possess when appreciating the teachings of Collinge. Petitioner is not suggesting Collinge needed to be modified to add the use of an APDU, but, rather, that Collinge’s disclosure already contemplated it based on the well-known background of the art. Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that “the Collinge Provisionals state the disclosures therein are intended to be used in a ‘standard’ PayPass transaction,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “the PayPass Specification (and EMV Specifications, with which the PayPass Specification complies) when reading Collinge.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1009, 8, 14–15, 22–23; Ex. 1050 ¶ 22). in a “standard” PayPass transaction and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, at a minimum, that it would have been obvious from Collinge that the “first set of data” (i.e., the encrypted payload in Collinge) would have been “usable” by the application of Collinge “to formulate an application protocol data unit response,” as required by limitation [1.C]. Petitioner further demonstrates how Collinge discloses that the “first set of data” was “useable by the application to formulate” an APDU response in addressing limitation [1.E–3], which specifically requires “generating a response.” See Pet. Reply 11 (explaining that “[d]etails of how [the encrypted payload] is used to formulate an APDU response are explained where that is separately claimed”); see also id. (citing Pet. 48–50 (addressing limitation [1.E-3])).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,032,171 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,171 - PTAB · Mar 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01239 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of all challenged claims, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Lefebvre and Chua.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aDenied
“The primary basis for Patent Owner’s argument is the fact that the ’111 patent has been subject to previous inter partes reviews filed by other parties.2 Id. at 14–19. A related fact—not fully addressed by Patent Owner—is that Patent Owner has staggered-in-time its suits alleging infringement of the ’111 patent against different parties. Patent Owner sued Cisco Systems in July 2022, but waited a year to separately file suit against Juniper Networks and Petitioner. IPR2023-00554, Ex. 1010; IPR2024- 00037, Paper 2. Patent Owner was not obligated to sue Petitioner at the same time that it sued Cisco Systems. Similarly, Petitioner was under no obligation to request to join Cisco System’s earlier filed inter partes review. See Prelim. Resp. 16. Rather, as acknowledged by Patent Owner, Petitioner waited to file the present inter partes review until the last day allowed under statute. Id. at 15, 17. Based on the circumstances before us, we do not agree with Patent Owner that it would be appropriate to enforce a deadline on Petitioner that is earlier than the deadline outlined by statute. See id. at 16.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner also provides an extensive discussion of the reasons to combine Chua with the system of Lefebvre, such as due “to Chua’s more detailed teachings regarding actions an SDN controller takes in response to information from security-related services like DPI.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 102); see also, e.g., id. at 24–26 (discussing reasons to combine). Petitioner also provides a detailed discussion of how the combined teachings of Lefebvre and Chua teach the method steps of claim 1. Id. at 32–39; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 115–136. We have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence and determine that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 unpatentable over the combination of Lefebvre and Chua.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,652,111 - Permian Global Inc. / Manticore Fuels, LLC v. Fuel Automation Station, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2023-01236 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board did not reach the alternative Van Vliet, Shoap, and Hosecraft ground for claims 12–13.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Permian submits that one skilled in the art would have had either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–78). FAS responds that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Permian’s proposed definition appears consistent with the 1 US 2011/0197988 A1, published Aug. 18, 2011 (Ex. 1004, “Van Vliet”). 2 COXREELS, INC., Coxreels 1125 Series “Competitor” Hand Crank and Motorized Hose Reels, https://web.archive.org/web/20140408035634/ http://www.coxreels.com/products/hand-crank/1125-series, published Apr. 08, 2014 (Ex. 1005, “Coxreels”). 3 US 7,819,345 B2, issued Oct. 26, 2010 (Ex. 1006, “Shoap”). 4 HOSECRAFT USA, Clamps Accessories, https://web.archive.org/web/ 20130702084457/http:/www.hosecraftusa.com/accessory-category/ Hose_Clamps, published July 2, 2013 (Ex. 1007, “Hosecraft”). problems and solutions described in the challenged patent and the prior art of record. As such, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Permian.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Here, the specification of the ’118 patent does not suggest that the tube and sleeve are anything but physically separate and distinct structures— [T]he tube 62 may be a flexible elastomeric tube and the sleeve 64 may be a flexible fabric sleeve. The sleeve 64 is generally loosely arranged around the tube 62, although the sleeve 64 may closely fit on the tube 62 to prevent substantial slipping of the sleeve 64 relative to the tube 62 during use and handling. * * * In this example, the [sensor communication] line 66 is routed 40 through the hose 40 between (radially) the tube 62 and the sleeve 64. The sleeve 64 thus serves to secure and protect the line 66, and the sleeve 64 may limit spill and spewing if there is a hose 40 rupture. Ex. 1001, 5:21–44. Those descriptions in the specification—(1) that the tube and sleeve are made of different materials, one being “elastomeric” and the other “fabric,” (2) that the sleeve is “arranged around” the tube, (3) that a sensor line is routed “between” the tube and sleeve, and (4) that the sleeve “limit[s]” spillage in the event a rupture in the tube—clearly support that the tube and sleeve are physically separate structures such that the sleeve serves as a protective cover for the tube. Nowhere do we discern, nor does Permian explain, where the specification indicates that the tube and sleeve might also be one and the same structure. Thus, in light of the specification, we maintain that the only reasonable construction is that the tube and sleeve, as recited in claims 5, 10, and 15, are separate and distinct structures.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with FAS. Although indisputably the schematic of Van Vliet’s fuel delivery system shows the flow passage running through manifolds 36, 38 and hoses 24, nowhere do we discern that Van Vliet definitively discloses or otherwise suggests that the flow passage runs through reels 30, as required by claim 1. Indeed, even Permian’s expert acknowledges that Van Vliet’s schematic “is a high-level representation and is not intended to depict the physical appearance or form” of the various components. Ex. 1003 ¶ 112 n.146. At best, Van Vliet discloses that “hoses 24 are preferably stored on reels 30,” but is otherwise silent insofar as any flow stream or passage running through the reels. Ex. 1004 ¶ 15 (emphasis added). Indeed, in order for the reel to be a part of the system’s fluid stream, there would need to be some disclosure or suggestion in Van Vliet that hose 24 is actually connected to the reel as opposed to being merely stored on the reel. But there is no such disclosure. To the contrary, Van Vliet explains that “each hose 24 is connected to a fuel outlet 22 by a dry connection 60 and to a cap 26 by a dry connection 62.” Id. ¶ 22 (emphases added). In other words, the flow stream through Van Vliet’s hose 24 cannot be connected to reel 30 if the ends of the hose are connected to dry connections 60 and 62, which indisputably are not part of the reel. Thus, we reject the notion that Van Vliet’s reel 30 is “part of a single fluid stream that includes manifolds 36/38, fluid outlet 22, and hose 24,” as Permian surmises from simply looking at Van Vliet’s schematic. See Pet. Reply 3–4. As such, we find that Permian fails to demonstrate that Van Vliet’s discloses or otherwise suggests a flow passage “running through a respective one of the reels” or being connected “via a respective one of the reels,” as required by claim elements 1(e) and 1(f).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that one skilled in the art would have deemed Coxreels’s teachings to be unsuitable or unacceptable for Van Vliet’s fuel delivery system. In our view, FAS’s unsuitability argument focuses improperly on the physical incorporation into Van Vliet’s system of every component and material described in Coxreels. But the test for obviousness is whether “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention,” not whether the physical features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference. See Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, whether one reference can be incorporated in another is “basically irrelevant” since the test for obviousness asks only “whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Here, rather than relying on every feature of Coxreels, Permian makes clear that it is relying on Coxreels’s teaching of “a reel for storing hoses that has a built-in ‘fluid path.’” Pet. 36–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 149–152). More specifically, according to Permian, one skilled in the art “would have recognized advantages of the flow passage in Coxreels’ reels (e.g., ‘a non-crimping, flat smooth hose wrap’) to facilitate connection to the manifolds and hoses of Van Vliet’s system.” Pet. Reply 7. Thus, FAS’s argument of physical incorporation of an ancillary feature of Coxreels’s reel is irrelevant to Permian’s reliance on incorporating Coxreels’s teaching of a built-in flow passage running through a hose reel with Van Vliet’s system that already includes flow path connections suitable for diesel fuel. Moreover, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,815,118 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,815,118 - Permian Global Inc. / Manticore Fuels, LLC v. Fuel Automation Station, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2023-01237 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Van Vliet and Cable because the combination teaches the claimed arrangement, and the secondary-consideration evidence does not outweigh that showing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Permian proposes that one skilled in the art would have had either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field and at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 105). FAS responds that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. 1 US 2011/0197988 A1, published Aug. 18, 2011 (Ex. 1004, “Van Vliet”). 2 US 3,810,487, issued May 14, 1974 (Ex. 1005, “Cable”). 3 AFD PETROLEUM LTD., AFD Onsite Refueling Systems, http://web.archive.org/web/20150922012312/https://www.afdpetroleum.com /fuel/onsite_refuelling (Sept. 22, 2015), published Sep. 22, 2015 (Ex. 1007, “AFD”). 4 COXREELS, INC., Coxreels 1125 Series “Competitor” Hand Crank and Motorized Hose Reels, https://web.archive.org/web/20140408035634/ http://www.coxreels.com/products/hand-crank/1125-series, published Apr. 08, 2014 (Ex. 1008, “Coxreels”). 5 US 2018/0057348 A1, published Mar. 1, 2018 (Ex. 1006, “Lowrie”). Permian’s proposed definition appears consistent with the problems and solutions described in the challenged patent and the prior art of record. As such, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Permian.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Permian applies “the ordinary and customary meanings of the claims terms,” and, thus, maintains that “[e]xpress constructions are not required here.” Pet. 20–21. FAS likewise submits that “no constructions are necessary in order to resolve the issues at hand and that the claim terms be given their ordinary and customary meanings.” PO Resp. 8. The specification and prosecution history of the ’805 patent, as well as the asserted prior art, adequately inform us as to the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms. Thus, we need not construe any claim terms expressly, as we can decide patentability without further construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to controversy).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Though Cable and Van Vliet may have some different concerns and focuses, the mere existence of such differences does not alone negate Permian’s reason to combine Van Vliet and Cable. In fact, it is expected that different references would have different concerns and focuses. But, [w]hen a work is available in one field, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill. A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. Here, FAS does not contend that Van Vliet and Cable are in meaningfully different fields, but merely identifies several differences in focus and application. That is not enough to defeat Permian’s reason for the asserted combination. As Permian’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would consider that “[i]ncorporating Cable’s . . . reel configuration into Van Vliet’s mobile fuel delivery system would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 140.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“focus and application. That is not enough to defeat Permian’s reason for the asserted combination. As Permian’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would consider that “[i]ncorporating Cable’s . . . reel configuration into Van Vliet’s mobile fuel delivery system would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 140.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 9,586,805 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,586,805 - Permian Global Inc. / Manticore Fuels, LLC v. Fuel Automation Station, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2023-01238 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 11, and 12 as obvious over Van Vliet and Cable; claims 6–10 and 14–20 as obvious over combinations including LCR references; and claim 13 as obvious over Van Vliet, …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner notes the discrepancies between these two levels of skill and argues for that of Petitioner’s declarant. PO Resp. 10–13. Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s arguments. See generally, Reply. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’955 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe “those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, though the parties dispute the construction of certain claim terms (see PO Resp. 13–16; Reply 1–4; Sur-reply 1–3), resolution of these disputes is unnecessary to resolve the present controversy.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Differences in [Cable and Van Vliet’s] exemplary applications would not have discouraged a POSITA from combining their teachings. Reply 8. And: a POSITA is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and would consider Cable’s arrangement of equipment and reel components potentially useful in Vliet. See EX1003, ¶¶172-175; KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (cannot assume “that a [POSITA] attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem”). Id. at 9. We agree. Though the inventors of Cable and Van Vliet may have had different concerns and focuses, this does not negate Petitioner’s argument that the combination is a simple substitution with predictable results. In fact, it is expected that different references would have different concerns and focuses. But, this fact does not of itself render the combination non-obvious. The Supreme Court’s guidance in KSR is instructive as to why Petitioner has the better argument. When a work is available in one field, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. A court use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,974,955 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,974,955
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.