- PTAB · Feb 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01382 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success based on Fukui’s teachings.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have a B.S. degree or equivalent in mechanical or electrical engineering or similar fields, in addition to a minimum of two years of professional experience with or graduate studies involving design, development, and/or utilization of optical communication systems. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, or offer its own assessment. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’423 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our patentability evaluations below. See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute any of Petitioner’s contentions as to claim construction or offer any construction of its own for any term. We are mindful of Petitioner’s view that Patent Owner’s litigation construction is inconsistent with the plain language of the claims. We also question whether that construction adds clarity in seemingly substituting “width that accommodates” for “width,” and replacing “standard width units” with “receptable modules,” without, on this record, support for such word variations. Nevertheless, our determination whether to institute trial does not require resolution of any claim construction dispute or necessitate that we adopt any particular construction for any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this time, we find persuasive Petitioner’s position that Fukui’s teachings account for the pertinent “width” requirements of each of claims 1, 9, and 17. See, e.g., Pet. 30, 32–46. On this record, Dr. Ralph provides sufficient testimony that under either of the parties’ proposed constructions of the limitations involving cassette widths, Fukui’s teachings account for those limitations. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–98.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“Owner’s challenge to Petitioner’s Fukui-based grounds is whether, in Fukui, a conversion module (e.g., 20) that is formed by coupling together two unit modules establishes that conversion module as a new structure identifiable as a unitary cassette.11 We discern that Fukui uses the term “conversion module” to refer to component 10, and uses that same term, i.e., “conversion module” to refer to component 20. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:33–35, 7:23–25. The components 10A and 10B that make-up conversion module 20 are characterized as each being a “unit module.” See, e.g., id. at 7:25–27. Thus, once unit modules 10A and10B are coupled together to form the structure that is “conversion module 20,” the current record reasonably suggests that the conversion module 20 is a component analogous to conversion module 10, but with a larger width, i.e., two times the width. Further, Fukui also characterizes unit modules 10A and 10B as being “fixed” to one another via coupling member 21 (see, e.g., id. at 10:11–16) forming “one body” (see, e.g., id. at 8:2–3). Further still, as described and shown in Fukui (e.g., Figure 5), conversion module 20 is structured to operate via a singular multicore optical connector 16 from which optical fibers F1 extend to all of the single-core optical connectors 17 of the conversion module. Id. at 7:52– 11 There is no dispute on this record that the term “module” as used in Fukui is analogous to the term “cassette” as used in the ’423 patent. 8:6. Thus, conversion module 20 is recognizable has having a singular system of fiber optic components within its body.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,740,423 - PTAB · Feb 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01227 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all grounds for claims 1–5 and 8–13, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 8 is anticipated by Fukui and claims 1 and 8 are obvious over Fukui-based grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been unpatentable over the proposed prior art. We analyze the asserted grounds with the above-noted principles in mind.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“Patent Owner contends that we should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) “because the Petition presents ‘the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously . . . presented to the Office.’” Prelim. Resp. 25–31 (alteration in original). Specifically, Patent Owner explains, the Office previously considered Sedor during the ’542 patent’s prosecution, and Sauter was made of record but not considered during prosecution. Id. Patent Owner, however, states that it “recognizes that this argument only reaches Sauter-based grounds, not Fukui-based grounds. This argument thus only needs to be addressed after the Board confirms the fundamental deficiencies in Petitioner’s Fukui-based grounds.” Id. at 25 n.3. Because, as set forth below, we do not, on the present record, find any “fundamental deficiencies in Petitioner’s Fukui-based grounds” that inhibit institution of trial, we regard Patent Owner’s § 325 request as moot, and we need not consider it further.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have [had] a B.S. degree or equivalent in mechanical or electrical engineering or similar fields, in addition to a minimum of two years of professional experience with or graduate studies involving design, development, and/or utilization of optical communication systems.” Pet. 26. On the present record, Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 1–31. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’542 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“enough to resolve . . . the lead Fukui ground” but that “[t]here are two disputes relevant to the alternative Sauter ground.” Pet. 22. With respect to the first of these “disputes,” Petitioner presents two claim constructions for the claim term or phrase “cassette width as measured between outer side edges thereof of one of one, two, three, four and six standard width units.” Id. at 23. The constructions are said to be from “the co-pending litigation,” with one characterized as “Patent Owner’s proposed construction”6 and the other as “CommScope’s proposed construction.”7 Of note is Petitioner’s 6 The claim construction attributed to Patent Owner is: “cassette width as measured between the outer side edges thereof that accommodates one of one, two, three, four, or six receptable modules.” Pet. 23. 7 Petitioner’s construction is: “The cassette width as measured between the outer side edges thereof equals one, two, three, four, or six times the contention that “[Patent Owner]’s construction cannot be correct,” and accompanying explanation in that respect. Id. at 22–23, 24. Patent Owner acknowledges that there is a dispute between the parties as to the noted claim construction but urges that “[t]he Board, however, need not fully resolve this claim construction dispute,” as, in Patent Owner’s view, the grounds based on Sauter are deficient based on either construction. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. We are mindful of Petitioner’s view that Patent Owner’s litigation construction is not correct. We also question whether that construction adds clarity in substituting “width that accommodates” for “width of,” and replacing “standard width units” with “receptable modules,” without, on this record, support for such word variations. Nevertheless, our determination whether to institute trial does not require resolution of any claim construction dispute, nor does it necessitate that we adopt any particular construction for the pertinent claim term. 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))). We invite the parties to develop the record more fully on this claim- construction issue during trial.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,435,542 - PTAB · Feb 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01218 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5 and 8–13 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“Stated somewhat generally, the core question underlying Patent Owner’s challenge to Petitioner’s Fukui-based grounds is whether a conversion module (e.g., 20) that is formed by coupling together two unit modules establishes that conversion module as a new structure identifiable as a unitary cassette. We discern that Fukui uses the term “conversion module” to refer to component 10, and uses that same term, i.e., “conversion module” to refer to component 20. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:33–35, 7:23–25. The components 10A and 10B that make-up conversion module 20 are characterized as each being a “unit module.” See, e.g., id. at 7:25–27. Thus, once unit modules 10A and 10B are coupled together to form the structure that is “conversion module 20,” the current record reasonably suggests that the conversion module 20 is a component analogous to conversion module 10, but with a larger width, i.e., two times the width. Further, Fukui also characterizes unit modules 10A and 10B as being “fixed” to one another via coupling member 21 (see, e.g., id. at 10:11–16) and forming “one body” (see, e.g., id. at 8:2–3). Further still, as described and shown in Fukui (e.g., Figure 5), conversion module 20 is structured to operate via a singular multicore optical connector 16 from which optical fibers F1 extend to all of the single-core optical connectors 17 of the conversion module. Id. at 7:52– 8:6. Thus, conversion module 20 is recognizable has having a singular system of fiber optic components within its body. At this time, we regard such characterization of the coupled unit modules 10A and 10B as reasonably giving rise to an understanding that the resulting conversion module 20 constitutes a unitary module or cassette component.” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“IV. REQUEST FOR DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325 Patent Owner contends that the Board should exercise its discretion to deny under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) on the theory that the Petitioner relies on substantially the same prior art and arguments that were previously considered by the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 31–37. Patent Owner, however, states the following: “Patent Owner recognizes that this argument only reaches Sauter-based grounds, not Fukui-based grounds. This argument thus only needs to be addressed after the Board confirms the fundamental deficiencies in Petitioner’s Fukui-based grounds.” Id. at 31, n.4. Because, as set forth above, we do not agree at this time as to any “fundamental deficiencies in Petitioner’s Fukui-based grounds” that inhibit institution of trial, we regard Patent Owner’s § 325 request as moot, and need not consider it further.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We are mindful of Petitioner’s view that Patent Owner’s litigation construction is not correct. We also question whether that construction adds clarity in substituting “width that accommodates” for “width of,” and replacing “standard width units” with “receptable modules,” without, on this record, support for such word variations. Nevertheless, our determination whether to institute trial does not require resolution of any claim construction dispute or necessitate that we adopt any particular construction for any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). 9 The claim construction attributed to Patent Owner is: “cassette width that accommodates one of one, two, three, four, or six receptable modules.” Pet. 21. 10 Petitioner’s construction is: “The cassette width equals one, two, three, four, or six times the standard width unit, without an additional amount. This means the cassette width must be evenly divisible by the standard width unit.” Pet. 21.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,795,107 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction 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)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01424 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled original claims 1–16 and 18–20 and denied substitute claims 21–39 because they broadened the challenged claims by removing the second-aperture limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“1. Statement of Law A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3). “Before considering the patentability of any substitute claims . . . the Board first must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential, “Lectrosonics”) (emphases added). This includes the prohibition against enlarging the scope of the claims. See Lectrosonics, at 6–7. “[T]he patent owner must satisfy the Board that the statutory criteria in [35 U.S.C.] § 316(d)(3) are met and that any reasonable procedural obligations imposed by the Director are satisfied.” Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (lead plurality opinion by J. O’Malley); see also id. at 1341 (“There is no disagreement that the patent owner bears a burden of production in accordance [with] 35 U.S.C. § 316(d).”) (majority opinion by J. Reyna). Accordingly: “Any motion to amend may be denied where . . . [t]he amendment seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii); see also PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 69, 71.1 “[I]f a substitute claim is broader in any respect it is considered to be” slip op. at 8
- ExcludeNot reached
“We do not rule on Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence Submitted with Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence, because we do not rely on the cited Evidence in formulating our Decision below.” slip op. at 3
Nonecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,536,632 - Menard, Inc. v. Signify Holdings B.V.InstitutedPTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01469 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all petitioned challenges and granted Menard’s motion to join the Luminex IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Here, Petitioner presents substantively identical challenges to claims 1–20 in the ’336 patent based on the same prior art, the same evidence, and the same unpatentability theories as Luminex presents in the Luminex IPR. Compare Pet. 15–89, with IPR2024-00101, Paper 1 (“Luminex Pet.”) at 15–89. According to Petitioner, the Petition differs from Luminex’s petition only because of different party names and updated sections concerning standing, related matters, real parties in interest, and counsel. Mot. 4. Because Petitioner presents substantively identical challenges to claims 1–20 in the ’336 patent based on the same prior art, the same evidence, and the same unpatentability theories as Luminex presents in the Luminex IPR, Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial for the same reasons Luminex satisfied the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. See Luminex Pet. 15–89; Luminex Inst. Dec. 19–64; Pet. 15–89.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“Consistent with § 315(b) and § 315(c), the Board’s rules provide that “[a]ny request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The Board’s rules also provide that § 42.101(b)’s one-year time bar “shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.” Id. We instituted an inter partes review in the Luminex IPR on September 9, 2024. Luminex Inst. Dec. 1. On September 23, 2024, Petitioner filed the Petition and the Motion for Joinder. Pet. 91; Mot. 7. Under § 42.122(b), Petitioner timely filed the Petition and the Motion for Joinder. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“If joined to the Luminex IPR, Petitioner agrees to take an “understudy” role and only “substantively participate” if Luminex is terminated from the Luminex IPR. Mot. 1, 5–6. Further Petitioner agrees that the following conditions will apply to it in its “understudy” role “so long as Luminex remains an active party”: (1) “all filings by [Petitioner] in the joined proceeding be consolidated with the filings of Luminex, unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve Luminex”; (2) Petitioner “shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not instituted by the Board in the Luminex IPR, or introduce any argument not already introduced by Luminex”; and (3) “with regard to taking of testimony, [Petitioner] will abide by 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between the Patent Owner and Luminex.”” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesOther
“5. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we determine that it is appropriate under the circumstances here to join Petitioner as a party to the Luminex IPR. See §§ III.D.2–III.D.4. The estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) will apply to Petitioner.” slip op. at 18
NonePatents in suitUS 10,299,336 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-01005 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–23 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. We also determine that the arguments and evidence of record do not support discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“under the sixth Fintiv factor only after a determination that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial. CommScope, 4–5. Here, we do not find the first five factors cumulatively weigh in favor of discretionary denial. Therefore, we determine that the circumstances here do not warrant an analysis of whether the Petition presents compelling merits, and the considerations of the sixth Fintiv factor weigh against exercising discretionary denial. F. Conclusion Having considered the parties’ arguments in view of the Fintiv factors, and taking into account Petitioner’s stipulation, we determine that the circumstances here do not warrant exercising discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. IV.” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Thus, although both parties indicate that no claim construction is necessary at this stage of the proceeding, it is apparent that they disagree as to the meaning of “discrete carbon nanotubes.” While Petitioner appears to construe “discrete carbon nanotubes” as “nanotubes that are generally individually distinct” (Pet. 13), Patent Owner argues a more restricted construction requiring that “discrete carbon nanotubes” not be reacted with other components. Prelim. Resp. 3. The evidence relating to claim 10 In quotations from the Preliminary Response throughout this Decision, we have retained bolding and underlining added to the text by Patent Owner. construction that Patent Owner offers on the current record, however, does not address its proposed restriction. See id. at 9, n. 4, citing Ex. 1001, 3:9, 5:39–40 (“The ’649 Patent describes the ‘discrete carbon nanotubes’ as, for example, ‘individually dispersed’, ‘individualized carbon nanotubes’, ‘dispersed as individual nanotubes’, and ‘essentially discrete individual fibers, not entangled as a mass.’”). As discussed in Section II.D.2 below, we determine based on the record at this stage of the proceeding that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that Sun discloses or suggests “discrete carbon nanotubes.” Therefore, we do not explicitly construe any claim terms in this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). If either party intends to argue a claim construction at trial, however, including what is the ordinary meaning of a term, they should do so in a clearly designated section of their briefing. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 21, 2019) (“CTPG”), 46, 49 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”). Claim construction arguments should not be relegated to patentability arguments on the facts.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least [a] Master’s degree in materials science, chemistry, chemical engineering, a field relevant to polymer science and engineering, or the equivalent, and at least three years of experience in nanomaterials, electrochemistry, batteries, or polymer related activities.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditional work experience can compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’649 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,636,649 - Innoscience America, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies Austria AGInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00975 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was obvious over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“possessed at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering or a closely related field, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor device design.” Pet. 1. Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Id. On the present record, Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 1–78. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’481 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“On the present record, neither party proposes any claim terms for construction. Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 1–78. As discussed below, we are able to determine whether to institute review without resolving the construction of any claim terms. Accordingly, we need not and do not construe any terms expressly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“‘run[ning] generally parallel to the lateral extent of a semiconductor material or semiconductor carrier’” and that “[t]he ’481 patent . . . describes a device that ‘has a lateral drift path.’” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:14–18, 4:37–38). Patent Owner directs us to a statement in the prosecution history that “[a] lateral transistor is a transistor in which current flows across ‘in the direction parallel to’ the device surface,” as opposed to “a vertical transistor,” in which “[c]urrent ‘flows in the direction normal to’ the device surface.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (quoting Ex. 1002, 33–34). Thus, the parties generally agree that a lateral transistor is a transistor in which current flows in a direction parallel to the surface of the transistor. Petitioner argues that Nega teaches or suggests a transistor in which current flows parallel to the surface because Nega’s source, gate, and drain electrodes “are spread laterally in a lateral drift path, instead of vertically stacked.” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 2). Patent Owner argues to the contrary that the placement of source, gate, and drain electrodes in the same lateral plane, rather than in a vertical stack, does not necessarily indicate that the current flow within the transistor is parallel to the surface. Prelim. Resp. 47–48 (citing Ex. 2002, 7–8, Figs. 1.7a, 1.7c). According to Patent Owner, transistors with electrodes in the same horizontal plane can have either lateral or vertical current flow. Id. Thus, Patent Owner argues, the lateral placement of the source, gate, and drain electrodes in Nega does not mean that Nega teaches or suggests a lateral transistor. On the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Nega teaches a transistor in which current flows in a direction parallel to the surface, rather than in a direction normal to the surface. Transistors with current flow in either direction can have electrodes located on a common horizontal plane, with the direction of the current flow depending on the configuration of doped semiconductor regions located below the electrodes. Ex. 2002, Figs. 1.7a, 1.7c. Because Petitioner relies on the location of Nega’s electrodes, rather than on any particular configuration of doped semiconductor regions in Nega, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Nega teaches a lateral transistor.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,899,481
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.