• Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01462 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Solus’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–8 because the petition did not adequately show motivation to combine Hanafusa and Dobashi.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “In particular, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz adequately explain why a POSITA looking for ways to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile would look to methods to achieve Dobashi’s RSm values. Dobashi teaches that because RSm “can be adopted as the period of waviness, RSm can also be used as an indicator for judgment of the surface.” Ex. 1005, 2:66–3:1, 6:23–26. Dobashi explains that waviness is “an indicator for determining whether the fine pattern forming performance is good or bad,” and “[t]he surface has small waviness and is smooth when RSm is large, and the surface has large waviness Dobashi also teaches that surface roughness Rzjis is used as a low-profile indicator. Ex. 1005, 2:66–3:1. Dobashi, therefore, teaches that RSm is an indicator of surface waviness, which Dobashi explains is different than surface roughness. Id. at 2:66– 3:3, 6:23–29. Given these teachings in Dobashi, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz sufficiently explains how or why a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Dobashi’s RSm values to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile. See Pet. 10–12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–52.” slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,346,014
• Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01461 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–10 were likely obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re 1 US 2013/0108922 A1, published May 2, 2013 (Ex. 1004, “Shinozaki”). 2 G. Khatibi, Temperature Dependent Elastic and Thermal Properties of Thin Copper Foils, Copper; Proceedings of the International Conference Copper ’06 (2006) (Ex. 1006, “Khatibi”). 3 Korean Patent Pub. No. 10-2012-0003485, published Jan. 10, 2012 (Ex. 1013; Ex. 1014 (English translation), “Toshio”). 4 US 2013/0108887 A1, published May 2, 2013 (Ex. 1012, “Kim”). 5 Griesi, M.B., Characterization of Electrodeposited Copper Foil Surface Roughness for Accurate Conductor Power Loss Modeling (2014) (Master’s Thesis, University of South Carolina) (Ex. 1015, “Griesi”). rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not shown unpatentable

    “For example, Dr. Randall does not provide adequate explanation or objective evidence to support his opinion that Khatibi’s use of a laser speckle based dilatometer instead of the claimed thermomechanical analyzer “is unlikely to significantly impact the CTE[6] value” because “variations in equipment and a heating speed of 5° C/min would not significantly alter the results.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58. In particular, Dr. Randall neither explains what constitutes a “significant” impact on CTE, nor provides objective evidence to support his contention that equipment variations and heating differences would not “significantly alter” the resulting measurements. And although Dr. Randall opines that “the heating rate (5°C per minute) is typical for certain devices” such as a thermomechanical analyzer or dilatometer, and “[t]ypically, these devices use temperature ramp rates between 2°C and 20°C per minutes, so the ‘5° C./min’ recited in [1d] is common and should not drastically affect the measurement results,” Dr. Randall fails to point us to any evidence showing that these temperatures are “typical” or that the claimed heating rate is “common.” Id. ¶ 59 (emphases added).” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Kim’s copper foil surface to have a Pc value of 19.2 as reported in Griesi. In particular, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Randall points us to, nor do we discern, any teaching in Griesi that a peak count of 19.2 provides any particular benefits or properties that would have lead a POSITA to modify Kim’s copper foil surface as Petitioner proposes. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Kim’s copper foil surface with Griesi’s peak count patent itself. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (stating that the fact finder must be aware “of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning”). It was Petitioner’s burden to establish that the combined teachings Kim and Griesi disclose limitation [1g] as proposed. We are not persuaded that we misapprehended Petitioner’s argument when we determined that Petitioner did not meet that burden.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “It was Petitioner’s burden to establish the Khatibi, alone or in combination with Shinozaki, Toshio, and Kim, discloses limitation [1d]. We concluded that Petitioner failed to meet that burden for the reasons explained in our Decision. We are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended Khatibi’s disclosures, or Petitioner’s evidence and explanation thereof, in doing so.7” slip op. at 5

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,811,689
• Gettattle, Inc. v. Afterwords, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2025 · IPR2025-00677 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  Instituted review of claims 1–7, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19 on all four anticipation grounds because the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to determine whether to institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions in view of the existing record, we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’811 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. See Pet. Therefore, we grant institution of inter partes review. Our reasoning is discussed below. A.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ORDINARY LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends: As of the effective priority date of the ‘811 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at the time would be familiar with the pre-existing point of sale and network-based technologies as above, for example in Section I.D. above as well as the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” portion of the ‘811 patent specification. Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 21 – col. 5, l. 10. This person would include someone who has, through education or practical experience, at least 2-3 years of experience in software engineering, such as the development of data sets, database management, and networking integration for dynamic content generation and network-based distribution. Pet. 10. Patent Owner states, “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Petition, p. 10.” Prelim. Resp. 14. We accept and use Petitioner’s proposed, and unopposed, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’811 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “The claim language does little to identify any meaning of “point-of- sale interface.” Looking to the ’811 patent’s written description, it never uses the term “point-of-sale interface,” but it states “moder[n] Point-of-Sale (POS) systems . . . capture rich details around their customers’ purchasing activity.” Ex. 1001, 1:52–54. The Specification further states that “[t]he transaction data may be stored locally to a point-of-sale (“POS”) device or to a remote location, such as a cloud service provider.” Id. at 2:23–25. Regarding the associated term “interface,” the written description states, “[i]n general, as used herein, an interface is a component of computer executable instructions stored in a tangible, non-transitory medium and executed by processor 12 to present a display of information related to the interface allowing someone to view and/or interact with the presented information.” Id. at 4:32–37. We are pointed to and find nothing in the ’811 patent’s prosecution history that sheds any further light on the meaning of this language. See Pet. 12–14; Prelim. Resp. 12–13; Ex. 1003. Based on the intrinsic record, we find that the ’811 patent describes a point-of-sale as being local to a transaction, e.g., a sale/purchase of a product” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “At this point in the proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the recited survey module must be autonomous, self-contained, or a web-container package. As discussed above, we preliminarily interpret this term to mean software code for displaying a survey question. We find no support in the current record to add to this definition any additional requirements related to autonomy, self-containment, or a web-based context for the survey module. The Petition (at 19) points to Douglas as teaching the claimed survey module, i.e., in Douglas, software sent to the customer for taking a product survey on the display of the customer’s computer device. Douglas teaches, in response to a customer providing a survey trigger (e.g., purchase data signals), a survey generator creates a transaction-specific survey (e.g., “Was the item you found too expensive?”) and transmits it to the customer’s device (e.g., a mobile phone with a touchscreen); the survey is interactive; and the customer touches or clicks their device’s screen to respond to the survey questions. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 34–35. Moreover, Douglas also discloses that its survey “interact[s] with the customer using one or more software applications on customer device 106,” which may be, e.g., a computer or mobile phone, further, “[t]he one or more software applications may be provided by survey system 101, or merchant 107, or a third party,” and finally, “[t]he one or more software applications may be web-based applications and/or native mobile applications installed on the customer device 106.” Id. ¶¶ 18–20; see also Prelim. Resp. 35 (conceding as much). Thus, Douglas appears to disclose a survey system where a survey server responds to a triggering survey token created by a merchant and sent by a customer, that connects the customer with a particular purchase, by creating a purchase-specific survey question and sending it to a customer’s electronic device, where the survey question is displayed on a web-browser by software, and the customer’s survey answers may then spur the system to generate and follow up with additional questions. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 18–20, 27–29, 33–39. This appears to include the claimed survey module at issue. As for Patent Owner’s argument that the recited survey module must” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,430,811
• Front Line Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · PGR2024-00028 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Fogarty and Chengod; the Board found that combination sufficient for every challenged claim.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “7. Conclusion Based on the entirety of the record, we determine that a person of” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “3. Analysis In our claim construction analysis “[w]e begin, as we often do, with” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownOther

    “the feature of the solid wire being “secured at a proximal-most end thereof within the proximal hub” was added during prosecution to overcome a rejection. Ex. 1002, 573-580. The prior art was distinguished because its guidewire “is configured to be steered and manipulated through the blood vessel, and subsequently removed, and, therefore, cannot be secured at a proximal end thereof to the luer hub 310.” Id., 578-79 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the prosecution history further demonstrates “secured” was not intended to cover removable attachment.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “2. Patent Owner’s Arguments Concerning Claim 1 and Our Analysis a. Reasonable Expectation of Success in modifying catheters to less than 6 Fr Patent Owner asserts “Petitioner has failed to perform a proper obviousness analysis by not adequately demonstrating a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Fogarty.” PO Resp. 35. Patent Owner asserts “the category of ‘Fogarty catheters’ is broad and diverse” and “Dr. Resnick admits he has no idea whether Chengod’s or Deaton’s catheters have interior constructions similar to that of the cited Fogarty reference.” Id. at 35‒36 (citing Ex. 2002, 52:16‒57:1). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has therefore not demonstrated that a PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the particular catheter taught by the cited Fogarty patent (Ex. 1004) to the claimed size when considering the shaft has a spring coil and braid in addition to the outer tube and lumen. Id. Petitioner responds “(1) Fogarty did not indicate the catheter’s size; (2) Fogarty catheters smaller than 6 Fr were known and disclosed in Chengod (and Deaton); and (3) sizing Fogarty’s catheter less than 6 Fr would work (i.e., reasonable expectation of success) because it did work.” Pet. Reply 19. Petitioner asserts that Yassinzadeh “shows a catheter that is less than 6 Fr and that includes a similar spring coil construction as found in the Fogarty patent” where the “dilator 150 has a diameter of either 5 Fr or 6 Fr.” Id. at 19‒20 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 86‒97 (“Yassinzadeh”)). Petitioner asserts that Yassinzadeh’s “analogous construction being less than 6 Fr confirms a PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in sizing the catheter in Fogarty (Ex-1004) less than 6 Fr.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 97). Patent Owner responds “Petitioner fails to specify what” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 11,857,737 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,857,737
• Xencor, Inc. v. Merus N.V.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00605 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Desjarlais or Moore or obvious over Lazar alone.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1356. Thus, because we determine, based on the arguments and evidence on the present record, that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to claim 1, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims under each Ground presented in the Petition. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“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.”). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons provided above, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing at trial that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’859 patent is unpatentable under at least one ground. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all the Grounds presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 49

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “As Petitioner points out, the cited disclosure in the ’935 provisional does not “mention[] positions 364 and 368 together as a pair of positions for potential mutations on two chains.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 109–19). Although Patent Owner is correct that examples or actual reduction to practice are not required for adequate written description and “[a] specification may . . . contain a written description of a broadly claimed 34 invention without describing all species that [the] claim encompasses,” Prelim. Resp. 15 (quoting Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1352 and Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)), the ’935 provisional must still “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor[s] had possession of the claimed subject matter” as of the relevant date. Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 127 F.4th 896, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2025); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. In this case, Table A of the ’935 provisional discloses a list of CH3 domain interface residues and identifies, for each interface residue in heavy chain A, the contacting residue in the corresponding chain B. Ex. 1030, 17, Table A. Table A does not, however, describe any particular substitutions or pairs of substitutions that should be made to the CH3 domains. See, e.g., Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 109–119). Table 7 of the ’935 provisional does identify specific amino acid substitutions in CH3 domains, including substitutions resulting in a positively charged residue at position 364 (e.g., S364K) and a negatively charged residue (e.g., L368D) at position 368. Ex. 1030, 52, Table 7. Patent Owner argues that this table “discloses specific positions for ‘identification of novel charge pair mutants.’” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 48). As Petitioner points out, however, while Example 13 of the ’935 provisional relates to identification of novel charge pair mutants, Table 7 itself was only a “first step” in this identification process. Ex. 1030, 51:6–17. In this step, “many interface contact residues in the IgG CH3 domain were scanned one by one or in groups for substitutions that would result in repulsion of 35 identical heavy chains” so that identified substitutions can then be used to generate antibodies “by engineering matched pairs of CH3 residues in one or more IgG heavy chains – CH3 regions” in follow up experiments. Id. Accordingly, Table 7 does not appear to describe heterodimer combinations, such as those that would result from a pairing of chains with different substitutions. Pet. 29–30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–118). As Petitioner further points out, the follow up experiments testing the matched pairs of CH3 residues did not include paired substitutions at positions 364 and 368. Id. at 29–31. Patent Owner points to disclosure in the ’935 provisional describing, as a distinguishing feature of its invention, the substitution of non-charged or neutral amino acids in wildtype CH3 with charged residues, which according to the ’935 provisional has the “advantage that at least one additional charge-charge interaction in the CH3 interface is created.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing, e.g., Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 42–48). For the same reasons discussed above, Petitioner has sufficiently established, for purposes of institution, that such disclosure would not reasonably convey to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the inventors had possession of the entire genus of heterodimeric antibodies comprising CH3 domains wherein a non-charged amino acid is replaced with a charged residue so as to create an additional charge-charge interaction in the CH3 interface. In this regard, we also note that “a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352.” slip op. at 34

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “adequately describes a heterodimeric antibody comprising the recited charged residues at the recited positions of the CH3 domains, i.e., “a positively charged amino residue at position 364” at a first CH3 domain and “a negatively charged amino acid residue at position 368” of the second CH3 domain. Having considered the evidence of record at this preliminary stage of the proceeding, and for the reasons set forth below, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently, for purposes of institution, that the ’935 provisional does not provide adequate written description support for claim 1 of the ’859 patent and that, accordingly, Desjarlais and Moore qualify as prior art to that claim. As Petitioner points out, the cited disclosure in the ’935 provisional does not “mention[] positions 364 and 368 together as a pair of positions for potential mutations on two chains.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 109–19). Although Patent Owner is correct that examples or actual reduction to practice are not required for adequate written description and “[a] specification may . . . contain a written description of a broadly claimed 34 invention without describing all species that [the] claim encompasses,” Prelim. Resp. 15 (quoting Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1352 and Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)), the ’935 provisional must still “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor[s] had possession of the claimed subject matter” as of the relevant date. Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 127 F.4th 896, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2025); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 34

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The ’859 patent does not provide an explicit definition of “immunoglobulin class.” Nevertheless, we do not construe that term to require “two heavy chains with four domains, VH, CH1, CH2, and CH3, and two Fab arms.” As an initial matter, the Specification teaches that antibodies include, 16 e.g., IgE and IgM — which have an additional CH4 domain in their heavy chains — as well as functional derivatives and/or fragments of known antibody isotypes. Ex. 1001, 11:44–48. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which limits antibodies to those having two Fab arms and “two heavy chains with four domains, VH, CH1, CH2, and CH3,” excludes these embodiments and cannot be correct. Moreover, the ’859 patent defines antibody as containing “one or more domains” that bind an epitope on an antigen. Ex. 1001, 11:39–44. Thus, an antibody does not require two Fab arms as in a native immunoglobulin molecule.12 The ’859 patent also describes a preferred embodiment as “Ig-like molecules.” Id. at 11:49–52. Thus, we look to the definition of “Ig-like molecule” in the ’859 patent, i.e., “a proteinaceous molecule that possesses at least one immunoglobulin (Ig) domain,” to inform our understanding of the phrase “immunoglobulin class of proteins.” Ex. 1001, 11:4–6. Accordingly, we further construe “immunoglobulin class of proteins” to mean proteinaceous molecules comprising at least one domain that is derived from or shares sequence homology with an immunoglobulin domain.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,926,859
• Xencor, Inc. v. Merus N.V.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00604 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 7–24, 26–28, and 30–32 on all four 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 trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions in view of the existing record, we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’286 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. See Pet. Therefore, we grant institution of inter partes review. Our reasoning is discussed below. A.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A POSA at the time of the alleged invention would have at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering, molecular and structural biology, biochemical engineering, or similar disciplines; several years of post-graduate training or related experience (including industry experience) in one or more of these areas; and two or more years of experience in the production of bispecific antibodies. (EX1002, ¶¶16-17.) Pet. 15. Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 10. At this point, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed, and unopposed, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’286 patent, itself. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “The ’286 patent uses the term “heavy chain” or “heavy chains” repeatedly; however, we find no express definition of the term. See generally Ex. 1001. Rather, the ’286 patent uses the term “heavy chain” in relation to antibody structure in a way that suggests the term is standard and well known in the art. See, e.g., id. at 3:19–59 (Background). The parties’ briefing on the technology reinforces this fact. See Pet. 5–14 (“The basic structure of natural IgG comprises four protein chains—two identical heavy chains (shown in red) and two identical light chains (shown in blue)—which are arranged in a Y-shaped configuration: . . . (EX1013, 112-13; EX1002, ¶¶23-30.)”); Prelim. Resp. 3–4 (“Natural or wild type Igs have a particular structure made of two identical light (L) chains and two identical heavy (H) chains. See EX2008 at ¶ 23. Each Ig heavy chain consists of three constant domains (CH1, CH2, and CH3) and one variable domain (VH), which is also isotypes, or a functional derivative and/or fragment of these. In a preferred embodiment, Ig-like molecules are produced that are antibodies of the IgG isotype because IgG antibodies e.g. have a longer half life as compared to antibodies of other isotypes. Ex. 1001, 11:9–21. As noted above (see supra Section I.C), IgG antibodies’ heavy chains have three constant domains, but IgE and IgM have four. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that heavy chain means one variable and three constant domains, and two differently-binding Fab arms, ignores embodiments of the invention. consistent with the definition of heavy chain in the ’286 Patent. See EX2008 at ¶ 24; EX1001 at 11:58–66.”). This is also how the ’286 patent generally uses the term. See Ex. 1001, 11:58–12:1. But, the Specification does not limit its embodiments to only IgG antibodies because it also describes that the invention may be “IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgA, IgE, and IgM” type antibodies, and fragments. Ex. 1001, 11:9–21; see also supra n.10 (quoting the ’286 patent’s definition of antibody). Other embodiments would not necessarily have the heavy chains as argued by Patent Owner. There is no evidence of record that the ’286 patent’s claims or the Specification generally use or limit the term “heavy chains” (or “heavy chain”) in any way deviating from its ordinary and customary meaning in the art. Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to expressly interpret this claim language. 2. Summary on Claim Construction At this stage of the proceeding, we expressly construe no claim terms and give each claim term the ordinary and customary meaning it would have had to the person of ordinary skill in the art as of the invention date. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. If either party intends to further argue claim construction at trial, they should do so in a clearly designated section of their briefing so as to expressly identify such arguments. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (content of petition); see also Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (CTPG) at 46, 48–45 (Nov. 2019).12 Claim construction arguments should not be relegated to patentability arguments on the facts.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “In brief summary, these limitations require one CH3 heavy chain to have a positive amino acid substituted in place of a neutral one, the other CH3 heavy chain to have a negative amino acid substituted in place of a neutral one, and that when the heavy chains are expressed by culturing the host cell these positive and negative amino acids interact and the antibody produced is a heterodimeric antibody. Petitioner asserts that Lazar expressly teaches engineering two CH3 domains so that, when expressed, they interact and form a heterodimeric CH3 interface by making neutral-to-positive and neutral-to-negative amino acid substitutions at known interacting residues on each CH3 domain, e.g., S364E (changing neutral serine to negative glutamic acid at residue 364) on one CH3 domain, and L368K (changing neutral leucine to positive lysine at residue 368) on the other CH3 domain; or T366D (swapping neutral threonine for negative aspartic acid at residue 366) on one CH3 domain and L351K (swapping neutral leucine for positive lysine at residue 351) on the other CH3 domain; that these residues were known in the art to be respective interfacing contact residues; that these modifications favor Fc heterodimerization; and that they result in a heterodimeric antibody (proof-of-concept shown by synthesizing and screening). Pet. 23–28 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:1–17, 17:67–18:3, 19:5–12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–119; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 121, 183, 241 (Tables 1, 2); Ex. 1007, 8:9–10, 17:19–20 (Table 1); Ex. 1008, 244–36).” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,358,286
• Mastercard Incorporated / Mastercard International Incorporated v. Ov Loop, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01289 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board maintained that claims 1–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Collinge, including claims 10–13 and 27–30.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandDecided for petitioner

    “Decision which components of Collinge “the Board relied on for claim 10’s limitation ‘receiving [at the remote computer system] an authorization request to authorize the transaction from the POS terminal.’” Remand Order 3. The Order instructs: “[o]n remand, the Board shall consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to claims 10 and 27, and their dependent claims. Regardless of the Board’s disposition on remand, the Board should address Patent Owner’s arguments and explain more fully its findings as to claims 10 and 27.” Id. The Remand Order further states that “this case is remanded to the Board for consideration of the arguments made in Patent Owner’s DR Request” and that we “should point more specifically to where in Collinge the argued limitation is taught, if anywhere, and which components of Collinge satisfy the limitation, if any.” Id. As instructed, in this Decision we consider Patent Owner’s arguments raised in the DR Request as to claims 10 and 27, and their dependent claims.3 As explained in detail below, and consistent with our determination in the Final Written Decision, we conclude Petitioner establishes by 3 We consider the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s DR Request in the context of arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Response, as arguments on the merits may be considered waived unless presented in that Response. See Paper 16, 9 (explaining that “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived”). a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 10–13 and 27–30 of the ’171 patent would have been obvious over Collinge.4” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Ex. 1011 ¶ 77. In short, although paragraph 77 of Collinge is cited in the Petition and addresses both issuer processing server 308 and acquirer processing server 312, Petitioner relies on and shows that issuer processing server 308 (not acquirer processing server 312) receives “an authorization request to authorize the transaction from the POS terminal,” as required by claim 10. Pet. 58–59; Pet. Reply 16–18; DR Req. Opp. 2–4. Furthermore, there is no dispute that in Collinge the “authorization process” is performed at issuer processing server 308 in response to a request it receives. Ex. 1011 ¶ 77 (“The issuer processing server 308 may then validate the application cryptogram”). Claim 10 requires “performing an authorization process” including “receiving an authorization request to authorize the transaction from the POS terminal” at the remote computer system. We recognize that acquirer processing server 312 facilitates receiving transaction information from the POS terminal and communicating an authorization request to the issuer processing server 308. See Ex. 1011 ¶ 77. It is merchant point-of-sale terminal 120, however, that transmits “the received payment information and any additional transaction information (e.g., transaction amount, merchant identifier, etc.) to the acquirer processing server 312,” so that “acquirer processing server 312 may then generate and submit an authorization request for the financial transaction” through payment network 124 to issuer processing server 308 for validation. Id. Thus, Petitioner shows that in Collinge the request received by the issuer processing server 308 is “from” the POS terminal, as required by claim 10. See Pet. 58–6-; Ex. 1011, ¶ 77, Fig. 7.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “’095 Provisional, reproduced above). Reply 17–18 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 46, Fig. 7). We credit Dr. Fiske in this regard, who explains that “the functionality performed” in the components in the “Blue-Box Structures,” that is Collinge’s Cloud Systema and Issuer System, “share a ‘connection 178’ therebetween,” as shown in Figure 7 of the ’095 Provisional. Ex. 1050 ¶ 43. We also considered Dr. Easttom’s opinion that Collinge’s Cloud System 110 and Issuer System 108 (see Ex. 1011, Fig. 7) are not one computer system because, in his view, each item “is (one or more) separate systems that operated independently from the others.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 150; see also PO Resp. 36–37 (arguing that Petitioner presents “no evidence” to show that allegedly “distinct” components are part of one remote computer system). We find Dr. Easttom’s opinion untenable because it is contrary to the express disclosure of Collinge, which demonstrates that, rather than operating “independently,” Cloud System 110 and Issuer System 108, and specifically remote-SE system 110 and issuer processing server 308, are connected and operate together through that connection, remotely from the mobile device. The Final Written Decision expressly agrees with and adopts Petitioner’s contentions with regard to claim 10, and we maintain that position here. See FWD 56–59.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,032,171 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,032,171
• Abbott Laboratories / Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Altivera LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00425 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy; the Board did not reach the alternative Bandy grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See generally PO Resp. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’307 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8–9.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “both the unique sensor ID as well as the associated unique wireless device ID is contradicted, or at least unsupported, by the claim language and the Specification. We determine that this limitation does not require authentication of both the unique sensor ID and the unique wireless device ID, or otherwise require authentication using the unique wireless ID. Rather, the limitation only requires authentication of the unique sensor ID. The language and structure of the claim itself, “the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID,” requires authentication of the unique sensor ID but not the unique wireless device ID. See Ex. 1001, 19:51–52 (emphasis added). The portion of the limitation reciting “associated with said unique wireless device ID” is linguistically an appositive modifying the “unique sensor ID.” Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges the “plain meaning of the claim term is that the remote server authenticates the unique sensor ID and that such unique sensor ID is associated with a unique wireless device ID.” PO Resp. 18.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions of any of these other claim terms or phrases. PO Resp. 24. We agree with the parties that the identified limitations—which each recite a “means” or “means for” performing a particular function—are means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). And we agree with Petitioner’s uncontested identification of the recited functions and corresponding structure for these limitations for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:20–21, 2:24–28, 3:33–36, 17:18–30); id. at 13–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:4–6, 9:19–20, 9:57–65, 10:10– 11) (explaining that Lovejoy is incorporated by reference into the ’307 Patent). We adopt the uncontested constructions identified by Petitioner, as” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the improvements offered by the incorporation of Heller’s teachings would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Confirming Petitioner’s assertion that the combination yields improvements, Heller states that it improves the type of glucose monitor used in one of Beck’s embodiments. Beck states that its “medical device 130 includes a glucose meter” which “measure[s] blood glucose levels of blood applied to test strips.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 34. Specifically addressing such “conventional” test strip glucose monitoring, Heller states that its in vivo glucose sensor system addresses a need for continuous or automatic monitoring in a small, comfortable device. Ex. 1016, 2:1–7, 2:15–58, 3:19–25. As such, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller to improve Beck’s medical device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. We further agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate sensor implementation details described in Heller, e.g., an A/D converter and patient attachment systems, with Beck’s medical device. Pet. 44–45, 53, 55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 228, 234, 236–238, 259, 267, 278, which do no more than yield predictable results, e.g., converting signals or attaching a sensor to a patient. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (“[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,969,307 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,969,307
• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–10 and 12–24 as obvious over Szrek and Llach, and claim 11 as obvious over Szrek, Llach, and Gilmore.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–14).9 Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purpose of this proceeding, Patent Owner adopts the Petition’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Pet. 2–3). We find that the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’451 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 14; see Okajima v. 9 Petitioner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art that the Board adopted in PGR2020-00084 (Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1008, 11)), and IPR2023- 01235 (see IPR2023-01235, Paper 34 at 12–13). Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “We need not construe “transaction processor” expressly because its meaning is not in dispute and its construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “On balance, we find that even with the alleged disadvantages identified by Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Szrek with Llach’s third-party transaction processor because the advantage of having a “centralized intermediary” allows Szrek’s system to support different game providers, such as different lottery companies, which would reduce some implementation costs and allow the system to be more easily and cheaply extended. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181); see Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see also Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the same). We acknowledge that the combination comes with some disadvantages, including “add[ed] delay, reduce[d] efficiency, and . . . implementation complexities by converting a simple, direct communication exchange into an exchange that traverses multiple systems.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 163). But, “[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8. Here, Szrek expressly teaches indirect communication as a possible implementation of its system and Petitioner’s combination—employing Llach’s third-party transaction processor as part of the indirect communication channel—offers the attractive benefit of allowing Szrek’s system to support different game providers, which would reduce some implementation costs even if it might increase other costs, e.g., by having to program certain components (e.g., the cash registers) differently. Specifically, we find that the ability to expand Szrek’s system to support different game providers provides advantages that outweigh the disadvantages discussed above in the circumstance where one desires a more robust and comprehensive system. See Pet. Reply 23 (noting three advantages of the combination— (1) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to use ‘a centralized system for activating lottery tickets from different retailers and different locations,’” (2) “allow[ing] support for different game providers, such as different lottery companies,” “reduc[ing] implementation costs,” and (3) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to ‘communicate with individual card” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “On balance, we find that even with the alleged disadvantages identified by Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Szrek with Llach’s third-party transaction processor because the advantage of having a “centralized intermediary” allows Szrek’s system to support different game providers, such as different lottery companies, which would reduce some implementation costs and allow the system to be more easily and cheaply extended. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181); see Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see also Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the same). We acknowledge that the combination comes with some disadvantages, including “add[ed] delay, reduce[d] efficiency, and . . . implementation complexities by converting a simple, direct communication exchange into an exchange that traverses multiple systems.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 163). But, “[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8. Here, Szrek expressly teaches indirect communication as a possible implementation of its system and Petitioner’s combination—employing Llach’s third-party transaction processor as part of the indirect communication channel—offers the attractive benefit of allowing Szrek’s system to support different game providers, which would reduce some implementation costs even if it might increase other costs, e.g., by having to program certain components (e.g., the cash registers) differently. Specifically, we find that the ability to expand Szrek’s system to support different game providers provides advantages that outweigh the disadvantages discussed above in the circumstance where one desires a more robust and comprehensive system. See Pet. Reply 23 (noting three advantages of the combination— (1) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to use ‘a centralized system for activating lottery tickets from different retailers and different locations,’” (2) “allow[ing] support for different game providers, such as different lottery companies,” “reduc[ing] implementation costs,” and (3) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to ‘communicate with individual card” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 11,488,451 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,488,451
• Geneoscopy, Inc. v. Exact Sciences CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00459 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over each of the six asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Here, as in our Institution Decision, we do not discern a significant difference between the parties’ respective proposed definitions beyond the number of years of experience after obtaining a doctoral degree. Compare Pet. 12, with Prelim. Resp. 47, and Resp. 19–20; see also DI 7–8. Under either proposed definition, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been very highly skilled and educated. For purposes of this Final Decision, we maintain that Patent Owner’s definition appears to be reasonable (and it falls between Petitioner’s two definitions asserted in the reexamination request and in the Petition). Further, Patent Owner’s proposed definition appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’781 patent itself, for example, Vilkin’s authors are a group of medical doctors and an editor of the journal is a PhD, Joost Louwagie, the named inventor of the ’781 patent, holds a PhD in Biochemistry, and the authors of Itzkowitz are medical doctors and PhDs. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see Ex. 1005, 3 (list of authors); Ex. 1016 (Dr. Louwagie profile); Ex. 1055; see also generally Reply (Petitioner did not contest our similar determination at Institution). Therefore, we adopt and use Patent Owner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, set forth above. C.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner asserts that no claim construction is necessary in this proceeding. See generally Pet. Similarly, Patent Owner states that it “does not believe that claim construction is necessary to resolve patentability” in this proceeding. Resp. 21. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” 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)). We agree with the parties that no construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of our Final Decision. D.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Pet. 12. In support of these grounds for unpatentability, Petitioner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Duncan Whitney, PhD. Ex. 1002; Ex. 1080. In support of its positions, Patent Owner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Vadim Backman, PhD, and the Declaration of Peter Wood. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2022; Ex. 2023.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “We have no reasonable doubt that aspects of the Cologuard product practice the invention of the ’781 patent’s claims 1 and 3, which are most generally directed to steps of collecting two portions of a fecal sample at home, and combining a respective buffer stabilizer/preservative with each of the two portions for claim 1, and then processing those fecal samples by testing for blood and nucleic acids (e.g., DNA) for claim 3. These appear to be nearly the most basic steps for using the Cologuard kit. See generally Ex. 2032. And, these steps do illustrate a certain ease of use and consumerfriendliness that may be a contributing factor in Cologuard’s success. See, e.g., Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 140–142, 155, 158–159, 170–171.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,634,781 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,634,781

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.