- Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 11, 2015 · IPR2013-00508 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14–17, and 19–28 are unpatentable under §103; claim 18 was not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not establish its required dimensions.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an implant with a length of greater than 40 mm (e.g., 42 mm) and at least 2.5 times the width, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“We recognize that evidence of secondary considerations must always be considered en route to the determination of obviousness, but its existence alone does not control the conclusion of obviousness. Richardson-Vicks v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The weight given to evidence of secondary considerations is dependent upon whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Even assuming that NuVasive’s CoRoent XL implant experienced “commercial success,” as Patent Owner asserts, Patent Owner has not demonstrated sufficiently that there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. For example, Patent Owner argues that NuVasive “pioneered the market for lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries,” (PO Resp. 59) but fails to demonstrate sufficiently that any of the disputed claims recite “lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries.” We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 17
- ExcludeOther
“C. Motion to Exclude In its Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner seeks to exclude the Declaration of Loic Josse (Ex. 1116, “Josse Declaration”). We did not rely on the Josse Declaration in this decision. Therefore, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 8,187,334 mixed§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,187,334 - Hayward Industries, Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool And SpA, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2014 · IPR2013-00285 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 12 is unpatentable as obvious over Rasmuson and Møller ’042 because the combination teaches the claimed pumping system and a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“not makes clear by its language that the word “primed” should be understood to mean “initially primed” or primed after the pressing of a “Start” button. As Patent Owner acknowledged at Oral Hearing, the claim language does not mention the term “initial” or “start” (Tr. 38:23–40:6) and, despite Patent Owner’s argument regarding the appropriate interpretation of “primed” in view of the Specification, we are not persuaded that the Specification limits “primed” in the manner argued by Patent Owner. Consequently, we conclude that the Specification does not express a clear intent to deviate from the plain meaning of the word “primed.” See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must clearly express an intent to redefine the term” (citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted)). We are persuaded by Petitioner that our construction of the terms “is primed” and “is not primed,” as set forth in our Decision on Institution represents “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage, as those words would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions supplied by [patentee’s] Specification” (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), and we confirm that construction here (Dec. on Inst. 11 (citing Ex. 3001)). Despite Patent Owner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that patentee has supplied here such a definition limiting “primed” to “become primed” or “initially primed” with sufficient clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“persuaded that the reference to “at least one aquatic application” in the preamble of claim 12 is a limitation. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Here, we determine that the body of the claim describes a structurally complete invention and that the preamble neither recites structure nor is necessary to give life meaning or vitality to claim 12. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Rasmuson is not analogous art based on the type of pumps described in Rasmuson or the aquatic applications for which the recited pumping systems are suitable.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“’479 Patent. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Rasmuson is neither from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention nor is it reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the patentee. PO Resp. 40–43 (citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). For the following reasons, we conclude that Rasmuson is analogous art to the pumping system recited in the challenged claim.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“the relevant art would not have combined the teachings of Rasmuson and Møller ’042 to achieve the pumping system recited in claim 12. PO Resp. 30–59. After consideration of the parties’ remarks and supporting evidence, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments and conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Petitioner contends that the measurement of input power, as taught by Møller ’042, is a proxy for Rasmuson’s flow transducer’s measurement of actual flow rate and would represent an improvement on Rasmuson’s methods and systems for measuring flow.6 Pet. 33; see Ex. 1018 ¶ 61 (“The controller of the Møller ‘042 Patent correlates the input power to a delivery variable of the pump (flow rate or pressure).” (citing Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 33–42)); Ex. 1037 ¶ 38 (“In many cases, using power-sensing techniques is a better option than using a flow transducer . . .”).7 In particular, Petitioner contends that “providing a power 6 Patent Owner argues that Møller ’042 teaches away from Rasmuson because Rasmuson teaches direct flow measurement and Møller ’042 teaches indirect flow measurement. PO Resp. 58–59. We do not find a clear teaching away from the substitution of one flow measurement means for its functional equivalent. For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by those arguments. 7 Dr. Schaaf testified that the use of power meters was less invasive than the installation of flow sensors at the pump and that, after utilizing a controller that measured electrical power to detect loss of prime, pump life was increased from measuring technique [eliminates] the need for a probe to be placed in the water, which may become contaminated, or require piping to be cut.” Pet. 33; see Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 29–40; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (arrangement of known elements according to their understood functions).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,479 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,479 - Nuvasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 10, 2014 · IPR2013-00206 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 17–23 were held unpatentable as obvious over Jacobson, Leu, and Brantigan; claims 9–16 and 24–30 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Jacobson, Leu, and Brantigan. PO Resp. 50–53. Jacobson discloses advancing instruments laterally into the disc space to perform a “fusion” procedure. Ex. 1004, 5:1– 4, 6:11–13. Leu discloses fusion of the lumbar spine by introducing an “interbody graft” into the disc space. Ex. 1005, p. 603. Brantigan, like Leu, discloses “prosthetic implant devices” that are “suitable for . . . lateral placement in any area of the spine.” Ex. 1006, 2:56–58. We agree with Petitioner that the combination of the known element of performing a spinal fusion procedure by laterally advancing instruments into the disc space (Jacobson) with the known element of using an “interbody graft” in a spinal fusion procedure (Leu and Brantigan) would have resulted in no more than the predictable and expected result of performing a spinal fusion procedure (Jacobson) that includes inserting an implant into a disc space (Leu or Brantigan). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Jacobson, Leu, Brantigan - combinability Patent Owner argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Jacobson, Leu, and Brantigan. PO Resp. 50–53. Jacobson discloses advancing instruments laterally into the disc space to perform a “fusion” procedure. Ex. 1004, 5:1– 4, 6:11–13. Leu discloses fusion of the lumbar spine by introducing an “interbody graft” into the disc space. Ex. 1005, p. 603. Brantigan, like Leu, discloses “prosthetic implant devices” that are “suitable for . . . lateral placement in any area of the spine.” Ex. 1006, 2:56–58. We agree with Petitioner that the combination of the known element of performing a spinal fusion procedure by laterally advancing instruments into the disc space (Jacobson) with the known element of using an “interbody graft” in a spinal fusion procedure (Leu and Brantigan) would have resulted in no more than the predictable and expected result of performing a spinal fusion procedure (Jacobson) that includes inserting an implant into a disc space (Leu or Brantigan). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Brantigan with any of Jacobson or Leu because, according to Patent Owner, Brantigan “teaches away from sizing an implant to rest on the apophyseal ring or be sized to occupy substantially the full transverse width of adjacent vertebral bodies.” PO Resp. 51–52, 55–56. This issue was discussed previously above. Patent Owner also argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Brantigan with any of Jacobson or Leu because the “cannulae disclosed by Jacobson and Leu are too narrow to accommodate Brantigan’s implant,” that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to insert [Brantigan’s] implant in Jacobson’s [system],” and that “the shape of the Brantigan implant is not conducive to insertion through a cannula or similar surgical instrument [as disclosed by Jacobson or Leu].” PO Resp. 52–53. In other words, Patent Owner argues that the combination of Jacobson, Brantigan, and Leu would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the prior art systems are not physically combinable (i.e., Brantigan’s implant allegedly cannot be physically combined with the cannula of either Jacobson or Leu). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”). We are thus not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“Secondary considerations We recognize that evidence of secondary considerations must always be considered en route to the determination of obviousness, but its existence alone does not control the conclusion of obviousness. Richardson-Vicks v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The weight given to evidence of secondary considerations is dependent upon whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1983).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,251,997 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,251,997
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.