• Intel Corporation / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00301 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review for claims 1–11, 16, and 21 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, and denied joinder.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “2026. This date is nearly five months prior to the date on which the final written decision would be due if trial were instituted in this proceeding. And, even if we assume Petitioner’s alleged February–March 2026 trial date, this date too is several months prior to the projected final written decision deadline. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding would issue before trial in the district court, unless the trial was delayed or rescheduled for a later time. Thus, we find this factor weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. See ARM Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2025-00207, Paper 10 at 2 (May 16, 2025) (Before the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office) (exercising discretion to deny institution with the same relative timing between district court trial and final written decision deadline).” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . 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). Institution of inter partes review, however, is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons discussed below, we exercise discretion pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) not to institute inter partes review. Additionally, for the same reasons and because institution was denied in IPR2024-01248, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“[T]he Director . . . may join as a party . . . any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director . . . determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.”).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,814,071
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00146 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Trove did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and the preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10–19 of the ’879 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for the term “user release mechanism,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–23; Prelim. Resp. 27–30. Patent Owner also proposes constructions for “automatically disengage the first and second catch structures,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 30– 32. For purposes of this particular Decision, we determine that no term requires construction to decide whether to institute inter partes review of the ’879 patent. 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.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “First, Petitioner’s reason to modify Kiyota “to provide the advantage of a bite actuated mouthpiece” (Pet. 42) does not explain why one would use Choi’s mount 100. Petitioner has not clearly established that to use a bite-actuated mouthpiece requires mount 100. Choi describes that “cap assembly 14 may include a mount 100 to which the bite-actuated mouthpiece is removably mounted, or secured.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. This description suggests that mount 100 is not a required component for a bite-actuated mouthpiece. Our understanding is supported by Patent Owner’s expert, who testified that using Choi’s mount as a “rigid collar member” in Kiyota’s mouthpiece assembly does not require combining its bite-actuated valve because “the bite-actuated portion has nothing to do with the alleged rigid collar member portion.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 119 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 46); see also Prelim. Resp. 55. Thus, Petitioner has not adequately supported this first reason to modify Kiyota to use Choi’s mount 100.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,165,879
• Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited v. Semisilicon Technology Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00156 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 8 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 4–6 were not shown unpatentable because Hiroyuki does not teach the claimed terminal pins.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the Schubert Declaration, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related discipline, and 6 years of 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), includes amendments to Section 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply pre-AIA law. See Pet. 2; Ex. 1001, codes (22), (30). 2 US 2009/0021955 A1, published January 22, 2009 (Ex. 1004, codes (10), (43)) (“Kuang”). Petitioner contends that Kuang is prior art to the ’546 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 2. 3 US 2012/0050606 A1, published March 1, 2012 (Ex. 1005, codes (10), (43)) (“Debevec”). Petitioner asserts that “[b]ecause Debevec was filed prior to the priority date of the ’546 patent, it qualifies as prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” Pet. 2. 4 US 6,774,584 B2, issued August 10, 2004 (Ex. 1008, codes (10), (45)) (“Lys”). Petitioner contends that Lys is prior art to the ’546 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 2–3. 5 JP2006-228529, published August 31, 2006 (Ex. 1006, code (43)) (“Hiroyuki”). We refer herein to the certified English translation filed as Exhibit 1007. Petitioner contends that Hiroyuki is prior art to the ’546 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 2. practical experience in designing or fabricating LED lighting systems, including controlling and driving LEDs,” or “[a]lternatively . . . would have had a master’s degree and four years of experience, or a Ph.D. degree and two years of experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7–8. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’546 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16

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

    “The parties also dispute the interpretation of the term “synchronous signals” recited in claim 1, with the parties proposing these respective constructions: Petitioner’s Proposed Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Construction “signals that are sent to the slave “signals related to activities governed by synchronized timing” nodes to control their corresponding LED strings at the same time.”” slip op. at 20

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

    “The “context” is typically evaluated by reviewing the intrinsic record. See e.g., Regeneron, 130 F.4th at 1380–84. Here, as discussed above, the ’546 patent has multiple disclosures where a curtain lamp has a single light-emitting diode in one light-emitting diode string. See Ex. 1001, 1:33–36, 6:15–20, 6:27–40, 8:25–45. In particular, the ’546 patent similarly discloses a first curtain lamp with one LED in one light string, as well as a second curtain lamp, which provides further support for Petitioner’s proposed interpretation. Id. at 8:25–45. Although Patent Owner argues that Figures 7 and 8 disclose multiple LEDs and light strings in curtain lamps, other embodiments and claims explicitly indicate single components in a “curtain lamp.” “[T]here is a strong presumption against a claim construction that excludes a disclosed embodiment.” See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Given that certain embodiments and claim 8 disclose a curtain lamp with one light string with one LED, we decline to interpret the claim to prohibit Petitioner’s interpretation. Additionally, we do not find that Petitioner’s claim interpretation renders the claim terms nonsensical or illogical. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1255. Patent Owner asserts otherwise, arguing that Petitioner’s interpretation is based upon a “nonsensical” or “absurd[]” argument, there is no reason to have both a master and slave control unit to operate a single LED, and the interpretation renders most of the components superfluous. See PO Sur-reply 12; PO Resp. Supp. Br. 5. As discussed above, however, although the ’546 patent does not appear to provide any explanation for why there are master and slave control units to operate a single LED, the patent nevertheless discloses that in embodiments. This situation is also distinguishable from Becton, where “unequivocal language” of the claim recited “spring means ‘connected to’ the hinged arm,” such that interpreting the spring means and the hinged arm as the same structure would have rendered the claim nonsensical. Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254–55. Becton further found that interpreting the spring means and hinged arm as the same structure would be inconsistent with descriptions of the elements in the specification. Id. Here, in contrast, the ’546 patent Specification is replete with disclosures of a curtain lamp having one light string with one LED, and claim 8 is directed to the same. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s interpretation of these claim elements.” slip op. at 36

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Although Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply on “light strings” and “curtain lamp” as they relate to a single LED are improper, we do not agree. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the Petition and Dr. Schubert’s original declaration stated that a “curtain lamp” is “commonly understood to be one or more light strings.” See PO Sur-reply 12; see also Pet. 8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 37. Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s interpretation in its Response. See PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner did, however, argue that Kuang did not teach or suggest “light strings” in any form and therefore did not teach a “curtain lamp” under Petitioner’s definition of the same. PO Resp. 15–17. A petitioner reply may respond to arguments raised in a patent owner’s response under 35 U.S.C. § 42.23(b), and here Petitioner’s argument that a light string may have a single LED is properly presented in its Reply in response to Patent Owner’s arguments. Further, Patent Owner was not only aware that Petitioner had taken the position that a “curtain lamp” could be a single “light string,” but Patent Owner also did not dispute Petitioner’s interpretation.8 Our view, therefore, is that Petitioner’s argument that a curtain lamp may be a single LED is proper because it is corollary to Petitioner’s reply arguments on light strings. That is, Petitioner’s assertion follows from the reply arguments on light strings and the unopposed interpretation of curtain lamp as a single light string. Additionally, to the extent there could be any prejudice to Patent Owner by these light string and curtain lamp arguments, Patent Owner has had opportunities to address them by supplemental briefing.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,884,546 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,884,546
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01501 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Trove did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, or 21 obvious over the asserted prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and the preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 21 of the ’028 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56–65). Patent Owner also states that it “discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding.” Id. We agree that there appears to be no material difference in the parties’ definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’028 patent, based on our review of the limited record. Moreover, the prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not” slip op. at 11

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

    “as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because “mechanism” is a nonce word for performing the claimed function without reciting structure for performing that function, and a POSITA would not have understood the term to have “a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure that performs the claimed function.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 39). For claim 1, Petitioner identifies two distinct structures described in the ’028 patent that correspond to the claimed “user release mechanism” for performing the claimed functions. Id. at 34. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the ’028 patent describes a first embodiment in which the corresponding structure includes sliding member 238, and its component parts. Id. at 34– 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:50–13:25, 13:29–33). In the second embodiment, the corresponding structure includes user engagement portion 260 on rigid collar 170. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:40–54). Petitioner does not separately address the structure corresponding to the “user release mechanism” as recited in claim 21. Id. at 53‒54 (relying on the same arguments presented for unpatentability of claim 1). court issued a claim construction order in the parallel litigation construing the term “user release mechanism” as a means-plus-function limitation under § 112, sixth paragraph. Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2002, 12–15). The district court ruled that the corresponding structure for claim 1 includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts,” or “[u]ser engagement portion 260.” Ex. 2002, 15. For claim 21, the district court ruled that the corresponding structure includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts” or “[u]ser engagement pad 240, planar portion 242, tabs 244, collar engagement portion 254, depression 256.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner indicates that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding only,” it does not dispute that the claimed user release mechanisms are means-plusfunction limitations, and it does not dispute the corresponding structure identified by Petitioner, even though the district court did not specifically identify engagement portion 260 as corresponding structure for claim 21. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2002, 15–19). Although Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the “user release mechanism,” because claim interpretation is a matter of law and the dispositive issue in this Decision turns on the interpretation of this claim limitation, we address it in this Decision. We agree with the parties that the “user release mechanism” elements recited in claims 1 and 21 are means-plus-function limitations governed by § 112, sixth paragraph. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”). “means,” it uses the nonce word “mechanism” without reciting structure for performing the functions recited in the claims. See Williamson v. CitrixOnline, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word “means” because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “[U]nder § 112, ¶ 6 equivalence, functional identity is required” and “[s]tructural equivalence under § 112, ¶ 6 is met only if the differences are insubstantial, that is, if the assertedly equivalent structure performs the claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding structure described in the specification.” (citing Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Here, Petitioner states that Kiyota’s lock release buttons 40 “perform the claimed function in the same way to achieve the same result” as the ’028 patent’s sliding member 238, and its component parts (Pet. 37) without providing sufficient supporting explanation or evidence. Petitioner explains only that the two structures operate in “substantially the same way” by a user pressing an element that that slides towards the mouthpiece assembly to disengage the catch structures. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). The Petition does not discuss any of the differences between Kiyota’s structure and the ’028 patent’s structure or provide an explanation of why these differences are insubstantial. Indeed, as Patent Owner persuasively explains, there are notable differences in the “way” the two structures perform the claimed function and the “result” they achieve. See Prelim. Resp. 39–40 (discussing the ’028 patent’s one-finger operation and indirect catch disengagement, versus Kiyota’s two-finger operation and direct catch disengagement). Moreover, the analysis in Dr. Vallee’s declaration substantially parallels the discussion in the Petition and does not provide any additional explanation or evidence to show that the differences between the “way” the two structures operate or the “result” they achieve are insubstantial. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91, with Pet. 34–38. For these reasons, Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that Kiyota discloses an equivalent structure to the structure described in the ’028 patent corresponding to the “user release mechanism” recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Kiyota. slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,782,028
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00175 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Biswas and Kumar; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed 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). The parties submit that no claim construction is necessary. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 15. We have not been presented with the need to construe any claim terms for this Decision. D.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Biswas and Kumar. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have known to use the masking techniques exemplified by Kumar to implement the disclosed operation in Biswas of edge routers providing hosts with port number ranges. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 97–101. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Biswas and Kumar.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “This disclosure is inconsistent with any suggestion that the Fangman system, when routing a telephone call to its destination, identifies the private IP address of the destination telephone by determining the port range to which the port number of the destination telephone belongs. When Fangman describes the NAPPT process, it does not indicate that port ranges are used, but rather repeatedly states that port numbers are used: The [service gateway] receives a data packet from the IP device, including a public destination IP address . . . a destination port number . . . and source information, NAPPTs the data packet, using the [public destination IP address] and the [destination port number] to identify the [IP telephone] . . . . Ex. 1024, code (57). Performing NAPPT on the data packet received from the destination may include using the public destination IP address and the destination port number to uniquely identify the IP telephone, and changing the public destination IP address to a private source IP address of the IP telephone while leaving the destination port number unchanged. Ex. 1024, 4:28–33. The SG 170 may maintain a table of semi-permanent mappings of the external IP address and ports to the internal hosts and ports. Ex. 1024, 8:49–51.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,693,369 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,693,369
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Instituted
  PTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01450 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Dziong and Sathyanath.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’088 patent (January 2006), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately four years of experience working in the field of network communications, including experience with [Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)] tunnels and bandwidth allocation,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable and familiar with the network communications technologies discussed in [the Specification of the ’088 patent], including bandwidth reservations, quality of service techniques, routing protocols (including Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)), tunneling protocols (including [MPLS]), resource reservations (including Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)), traffic engineering (including relevant extensions to OSPF, IS-IS, and RSVP), and ring networking standards (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and resilient packet ring (RPR) defined by IEEE 802.17). Id. Patent Owner states that “Petitioner’s definition . . . is acceptable for” purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8 n.3. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’088 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’088 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “no claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 12–13. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted

    “Patent Owner, however, does not explain sufficiently why any of these issues demonstrate a failure to teach limitation [1.1]. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that Dziong identifies “two or more candidate routes” (i.e., A-B-C-D and A-C-D) for a “new connection” (i.e., a new recovery path to protect primary path SRLG 4 in the event of failure) with a “requested bandwidth” (i.e., 15 units) sufficient to protect against failure. See Pet. 27–31 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 70, 89, 90, 104, 105). The 15 units are the “units of demand” on SRLG 4 that must be protected. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89 (“[E]ach solid line represents all of the demands that have the same link-detour path, which is represented by a corresponding broken line. For example, solid line 606 in SRLG 4 corresponds to one or more demands totaling 15 units of bandwidth between nodes A and D.”), 90. A link in a potential recovery path for that demand on SRLG 4, therefore, would need to have “sufficient recovery bandwidth” to protect against failure (i.e., at least 15 units). Id. ¶¶ 36, 104. That is reflected in the “SRLG 4 failure” column of Figure 6(b) for link A-B (part of the A-B-C-D recovery path shown in blue in Figure 6(a) above). On this record, we do not see why the fact that link A-B also protects against failures of SRLG 3 and 5 and has its own 12 units of demand, or the fact that SRLG 4 also has another 24 units of demand (which link A-B does not protect against), contradicts Petitioner’s position regarding Dziong and limitation [1.1]. See id. ¶¶ 89–90 (“link A-B is not part of the link-detour path for the other 24 XC units of demand on SRLG 4”). At this stage, we find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Dziong teaches limitation [1.1]. Therefore, we need not evaluate any additional arguments regarding Sathyanath at this time. See Pet. 31–32; Prelim. Resp. 14–16.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We disagree based on the current record. Dziong refers to both “link-based” and “path-based” recovery. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6–8. And the two methods are similar in various ways, as Dziong recognizes. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 69 (“While some of the algorithms utilized in a link-based scheme are related to path-based recovery algorithms, there are significant modifications and special considerations that are made in the case of link-based recovery.”), 103 (“In some areas, the issues associated with recovery path calculation for link-based recovery [are] analogous to recovery path calculations for path-based restoration . . . .”). Dziong also purports to incorporate Sathyanath’s application by reference. Id. ¶ 1. And, as Petitioner points out, the references have similar disclosures and similar discussions of bandwidth sharing. See Pet. 1, 20–22; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 10–12, 36–39, 60, 65, 88; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4, 12–13, 41–45, 200. Thus, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider combining the teachings of Dziong and Sathyanath. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.”); In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming an obviousness determination where two “references both teach processes directed to making the same class of products” and minor differences between the disclosures did not “negate the motivation to combine”). Second, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to identify specific teachings in Sathyanath that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to implement in Dziong with a reasonable expectation of success” and “does not explain how the features would have been combined or why there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner, however, only mentions Petitioner’s introductory statement regarding reasons to combine and does not address the substance of Petitioner’s arguments for claim 1, where Petitioner explains how it is relying on Sathyanath as a secondary reference. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 22–23). For example, regarding the “sharing definition” of limitation [1.2], Petitioner argues that because Dziong only gives “limited details about the data format used for sharing” reserved bandwidth information, “it would have been obvious to consider . . . Sathyanath’s examples,” relying on two particular alleged “sharing definition[s]” in Sathyanath (i.e., the “aggregate node-link vector” and “TE/Share database”). Pet. 36–39. Based on the current record, we preliminarily find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing, supported by the testimony of Dr. Mir, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such data formats to share reserved bandwidth information in the system of Dziong, with a reasonable expectation of success. See id.; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–39, 72–79.” slip op. at 38

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,596,088
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01500 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  Institution of IPR challenging claims 1–5 was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or an equivalent field, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures and protocols, and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). Petitioner further proposes that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). 6 Elgamal, U.S. Patent No. 6,898,248 B1, issued May 24, 2005 (Ex. 1008, “Elgamal”). 7 Frank et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0035469 A1, published Feb. 20, 2003 (Ex. 1006, “Frank”). 8 Zha et al., “Soft-Decision Successive Interference Cancellation CDMA Receiver with Amplitude Averaging and Robust to Timing Errors,” Proc. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2001 (GLOBECOM ’01), vol. 2, 2001, pp. 743–747 (Ex. 1010, “Zha”). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’703 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. 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).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “provide sufficiently persuasive evidence in support of its position that claim 1’s “decoders” has a meaning broad enough to correspond to Zha’s decision rule. Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s understanding of claim 1’s “decoders” by arguing that “[Patent Owner] does not argue that the specification disclaims decoders that do not perform error correction, or otherwise expressly limits the claimed bank of decoders to error correction.” Prelim. Reply 6. In support of its position, Petitioner cites Dr. Min’s testimony that “[i]n my opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that the ‘decision rule’ would be implemented using a decoder, as decoders typically make bit decisions.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 178; Pet. 59. Dr. Min does not cite any objective evidence in support of this view. Ex. 1003 ¶ 178. In response, Patent Owner marshals intrinsic evidence, along with Dr. Caire’s testimony based on objective supporting evidence. Prelim. Resp. 47–48; Prelim. Sur-Reply 5–6. For example, arguing that all embodiments disclosed in the ’703 patent use error-correcting coding, Patent Owner emphasizes the ’703 patent’s statement that “the [’703 patent’s] specification states that ‘[t]he invention is based on an iterative decoding solution that exploits error correction codes.’” Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (quoting Ex. 1001, 25:27–29 (emphasis added by Patent Owner)). Patent Owner also cites the Abstract of the ’703 patent, which states that “[t]he present invention provides Turbo-decoding for joint signal demodulation based on an iterative decoding solution that exploits error correction codes.” Ex. 1001, code (57); Prelim. Sur-Reply 6. Patent Owner also cites Dr. Caire’s testimony that “any reasonable understanding of a decoder is one that implements an error correction coding approach.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 98; Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Caire cite objective evidence that supports this view. Ex. 2001 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 2003, 3; Ex. 2004, 11; Ex. 2005, 228). Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Patent Owner’s more persuasive than Petitioner’s. Starting with the intrinsic evidence, Patent Owner’s citation of the ’703 patent’s repeated statements that the “invention . . . exploits error correction codes” is more persuasive than Petitioner’s argument that the ’703 patent does not disclaim other approaches. Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 25:27–29, code (57)); Prelim. Reply 6. Petitioner argues that certain background documents suggest decoders may have a broad meaning, but this attorney argument warrants less weight than Dr. Caire’s testimony. Prelim. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 2003, 18–20; Ex. 2004, 7, 9). Accordingly, in sum, Petitioner does not” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “In view of all the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not find a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing on this issue. When questioning who exactly had rights to which specific inventions of Mr. McElwain’s, Petitioner glosses over the key, undisputed fact that Mr. McElwain assigned the invention of the ’703 patent to the exact same entity to which Brommer was assigned, specifically BAESI. Ex. 2012, 2; Ex. 2011, 2. Mr. McElwain did so shortly after BAE filed Mr. McElwain’s provisional application on April 14, 2003, which both parties treat as the ’703 patent’s date of invention. Ex. 2012, 2; Ex. 2013, 1; Prelim. Resp. 32; Prelim. Reply 1. This, in combination with Patent Owner’s evidence regarding Mr. McElwain’s EPIIA and BAE’s acquisition of Lockheed Martin’s Aerospace Electronics System Business, evinces that Mr. McElwain had an obligation on April 14, 2003, to assign the invention of the ’703 patent to BAESI. Exs. 2014–2016. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner does not advance a reason that Mr. McElwain would not have been obligated on April 14, 2003, to assign the invention of the ’703 patent to BAESI, much less provide evidence that he was not so obligated. See generally Prelim. Reply; Prelim. Sur-Reply 2. In sum, weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not find that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its position that Brommer is prior art to the ’703 patent for purposes of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its assertions that the claims of the ’703 patent would have been obvious over Brommer in combination with other references.” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,463,703
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00011 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–4 and 6–8, exercising § 314(a) discretion because the Fintiv factors favored denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Id. at 5–6. We take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Id. at 6.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “For example, citing Fuller’s disclosures of “signals,” Petitioner argues that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that each individual signal necessarily includes an amplitude, and that the M individual signals thus correspond to a plurality of individual amplitude estimates.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). Similarly, citing Fuller’s disclosure of “channel estimates,” Petitioner argues that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that the channel estimates include amplitude estimates, and that the estimated individual signals include at least estimated amplitudes.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102). In support of these arguments, however, Petitioner cites Dr. Min’s testimony, which does not cite objective supporting evidence and, thus, warrants limited weight. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 99, 102; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or an equivalent field, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures and protocols, and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). Petitioner further proposes that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’651 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. 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).” slip op. at 9

  Discretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,920,651
• Catalyst Orthoscience Inc. v. Shoulder Innovations, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · PGR2025-00001 · APJ James A Tartal · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of post-grant review of claims 1–22, exercising its discretion under § 324(a) based on the Fintiv factors.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv 5−6. We consider these factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. In” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “parties, we do not find the merits to be particularly strong on the current record. For example, limitation [1-4] recites, in part, “a locking nut having . . . an external thread on an outside surface of the locking nut.” Ex. 1001, 9:46–47. In alleging obviousness based in part on Orphanos, Petitioner equates the claimed “locking nut” to Orphanos’s collet 230 in a first embodiment of Orphanos, or Orphanos’s collet portion 1052 in a second embodiment of Orphanos. Pet. 37–38. Petitioner acknowledges that the collet and collet portion do not have external threads, but rather are designed to have a snap-fit engagement with the inner sidewall of the baseplate’s central throughbore. Id. at 38. Petitioner argues that modifying the collet and collet portion to have external threads would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in view of Orphanos’s teachings and the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 38–42 (arguing, inter alia, that it would have been “a substitution of a known part for a known problem” and “obvious as a matter of design choice”). Petitioner does not allege that replacing the snap-fit coupling with external threads would either: (1) result in any advantages; or (2) preserve any of Orphanos’s stated benefits of its snap-fit arrangement. See Pet. 34–37. That Petitioner describes no advantages to making its proposed modification potentially undermines Petitioner’s case that the skilled artisan would have done so. Cf. Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . 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.”).” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANot reached

    “Petitioner’s arguments regarding the central post and locking nut include an implicit claim construction argument that these components need not be separate structures. Pet. 74, 76–81. Patent Owner, on the other hand, would have us interpret the claim to require that they be separate structures. Patent Owner raises credible evidence to support its theory. Specifically, Patent Owner directs us to the language of claim 1, which separately recites “a central screw” and “a locking nut.” Prelim. Resp. 51; see Ex. 1001, 9:44–53. Patent Owner further contends, in view of the claim language, that the claimed central post and locking nut are separate and distinct components. According to Patent Owner, however, Lefebvre’s main head and anchor rod portions are parts of a single monolithic anchoring screw. Prelim. Resp. 53–58. Where a claim lists elements separately, there is a rebuttable presumption that these elements have separate and distinct physical structures. See Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 92 F.4th 1049, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citing Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–1232 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). The presumption may be rebutted by the intrinsic record. Id. At this stage, however, Petitioner does not address that claim 1 appears to separately recite a central post and a locking nut, and does not direct us to any portion of the intrinsic record that might rebut the presumption that these elements are, therefore, separate and distinct structures. See Pet. 73–77. Petitioner also argues that the claim terms “baseplate central channel” and “central channel . . . configured to interface with the baseplate” are indefinite. Pet. 95–102. Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms is clear and that Petitioner “had no problem” arguing how the asserted art purportedly rendered the claims obvious. Prelim. Resp. 69–77.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not reached

    “Petitioner also argues that the claim terms “baseplate central channel” and “central channel . . . configured to interface with the baseplate” are indefinite. Pet. 95–102. Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms is clear and that Petitioner “had no problem” arguing how the asserted art purportedly rendered the claims obvious. Prelim. Resp. 69–77. In sum, even if Petitioner’s contentions show it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable, we find Patent Owner’s arguments identify credible weaknesses in Petitioner’s contentions. Accordingly, we find that that the sixth Fintiv factor is neutral and does not weigh against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 12,023,254
• Integrated Dna Technologies, Inc. v. Tecan Genomics, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01504 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Iafrate and Kivioja.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “On this preliminary record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is higher than warranted when Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill “further would have had specific experience with implementing and designing library preparation methods.” Pet. 21–22. However, we disagree with Patent Owner that a POSA only need to “have had experience with DNA sequencing methods” (Prelim. Resp. 8) because an artisan with experience with only pre-NGS sequencing methods would not qualify as a person of ordinary skill. Instead, for purposes of this Decision, we find a person of ordinary skill would have had a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, molecular biology, or biochemistry. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. The person of ordinary skill would have had experience with NGS sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned. This definition of a person of ordinary skill is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’357 patent and prior art. We further note that neither aspect of the dispute over the skill level affects our decision to institute review.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “1. “indexing site” Petitioner argues that the ’357 patent defines “indexing site” as a sample index, specifically, “a nucleic acid sequence that acts as an index for multiple polynucleotide samples, thus allowing for the samples to be pooled together into a single sequencing run, which is known as multiplexing.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:40–44). Patent Owner does not disagree other than to argue that no claim requires construction. The ’357 patent states: An indexing site is a nucleic acid sequence that acts as an index for multiple polynucleotide samples, thus allowing for the samples to be pooled together into a single sequencing run, which is known as multiplexing. provide a definition for “indexing site,” and we construe the term in accordance therewith.” slip op. at 10

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

    “3. “identifying sequence reads with identical identifier and target sequences as duplicates” Although the parties do not request construction of this limitation, we note that the parties may wish to address the construction of this limitation after institution. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims are construed only to the extent necessary the term “duplicates” means that the sequences are identical. We observe that the ’357 patent states: “A duplicate sequencing read can be a sequencing read with the same identifier site and target sequence as another sequencing read in the population of sequencing reads.” Ex. 1004, 4:12–15. The claim does not use the exact wording as the Specification.4” slip op. at 11

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

    “4. “comprising” The parties may address the meaning of the transitional phrase “comprising” and whether the prior art meets the claim if the prior art discloses a method of identifying as duplicates those sequence reads with identical labels and target fragments and, in addition also identifies other sequence reads as duplicates, including sequence reads with some mutations resulting from PCR or SBS error. See Ex. 1079 ¶ 117. On this preliminary record, we construe “comprising” as an open-ended transition that is not limited to the listed steps. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 811.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,098,357

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.