- PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00667 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1 and 3, finding a reasonable likelihood they are obvious over Fujiyoshi, Kumar, Cox, and Townsend, or over Mitamura and Townsend.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“other things, it “identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). “[T]he IPR petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that its petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b) based on a complaint served on a real party in interest more than a year earlier.” Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, “an IPR petitioner’s initial identification of the real parties in interest should be accepted unless and until disputed by a patent owner,” who, in turn, “must produce some evidence that tends to show that a particular third party should be named a real party in interest.” Id. at 1242, 1244 (footnote omitted). “[T]he two questions lying at [the] heart [of the real party in interest inquiry] are whether a non-party ‘desires review of the patent’ and whether a petition has been filed at a non-party’s ‘behest.’” RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 at 26–27 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2020) (precedential) (citing Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“AIT”)); see also Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 887 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“other things, it “identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). “[T]he IPR petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that its petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b) based on a complaint served on a real party in interest more than a year earlier.” Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, “an IPR petitioner’s initial identification of the real parties in interest should be accepted unless and until disputed by a patent owner,” who, in turn, “must produce some evidence that tends to show that a particular third party should be named a real party in interest.” Id. at 1242, 1244 (footnote omitted). “[T]he two questions lying at [the] heart [of the real party in interest inquiry] are whether a non-party ‘desires review of the patent’ and whether a petition has been filed at a non-party’s ‘behest.’” RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 at 26–27 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2020) (precedential) (citing Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“AIT”)); see also Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 887 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). For purposes of this Decision, we apply the higher level of ordinary skill proposed by Patent Owner as commensurate with the subject matter of the ’122 patent and the references. Although it is not clear that the parties’ disagreement as to the level of ordinary skill in the art is material to this Decision, applying Patent Owner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art suggests that such a person would have a deeper understanding of the technology and be able to infer more from the teachings of the references than one having the skill set proposed by Petitioner. The parties may want to address this issue further at trial.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Both parties agree that no claim construction is required. Pet. 6, Prelim. Resp. 35. We note, however, that claim 1 recites the following three elements: (i) “an angular rate sensor unit” that receives certain signals and outputs other signals, (ii) “central circuitry” that receives certain signals and outputs other signals, and (iii) “a digital signal processing system” that analyzes certain signals and feeds back certain signals to the angular rate sensor unit. Ex. 1001, 9:39 – 54. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites additional “control circuitry” and “angle rate signal loop circuitry.” Although neither claim 1 nor claim 3 recite any further structure and both claims employ nonce words, such as “unit,” “system,” and “circuitry” to carry out recited functions, neither party proposes that any claim term be construed as a means-plus-function limitation. Well-known nonce words can operate as a substitute for “means” in the context of § 112, para. 6. A claim that does not include the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim is not written in means-plus-function format; this presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation “fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” or recites a “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. See Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 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. Williamson v. Citrix OnLine, LLC, 792 Fed 1339, 1348–1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this stage of the proceeding, we do not explicitly construe any term or limit the claims to the structure disclosed in the Specification or its equivalent; we further consider the implications of the claim language in our substantive analysis below.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,508,122 - PTAB · Sep 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01300 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13 and all asserted 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
“partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). A decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have possessed a strong understanding in the use and development of genetics and genomics approaches for detecting or monitoring human diseases, such as spatial detection of a target analyte (e.g., mRNA or DNA) in a tissue, and would typically have a Ph.D. in a relevant field (e.g., molecular biology, genetics, and bioinformatics) with two years of experience. Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 24–36). For the purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not provide its own proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s unchallenged definition as it is consistent with the cited prior art and disclosure of the ’142 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Thus, according to claim 1, to synthesize a first/second plurality of DNA products by performing a synthesis reaction, the “DNA products” must 1) use the oligonucleotides collected in steps (a) and (b) as templates from which the DNA is synthesized, and 2) incorporate a source location-identifying nucleic acid sequence.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“(2) Analysis Neither party has offered a construction for “collecting oligonucleotides under conditions that release them” in claim 1. We note that, in the related litigation, the district court determined that “under conditions that release” should have its plain and ordinary meaning. Ex. 1052, 38. For purposes of institution, we also apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this claim phrase and do not need to expressly construe the claim phrase for purposes of institution. On this record, for the reasons explained by Petitioner and as supported by its declarant testimony, we conclude Petitioner has sufficiently shown that So-456 discloses the “collecting oligonucleotides under conditions that release them” limitation recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 42
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,473,142 - Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Aug 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00460 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 and 12–18 are anticipated by Nishida.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination on the construction of any claim term or the patentability of any challenged claim V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’749 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“arguments that Nishida-US does not disclose the “simultaneously knitting” limitation of the claims of the ’749 patent constitutes “error.” Pet. 86. In our view, whether error or not, there is clear inconsistency on the record before us as to assessment of Nishida’s and Nishida-US’s teachings pertaining to the pertinent “simultaneously knitting” requirement. In that regard, as discussed above, in accounting for that requirement, the Petition unambiguously relies on disclosure in Nishida specifically stating that “when the strip of material (1) is manufactured, the patterns (2) of the uppers are produced, at the same time as the strip of material.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract (emphasis added by Petitioner)). At the very least, there is a reasonable case to be made that such disclosure conveys that the material (1) and the patterns (2) are created simultaneously. The record is devoid of any indication that the Examiner considered or apprehended the extent of that disclosure.15 “[M]isapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims,” as seemingly occurred here, does not lend itself to a conclusion that the exercise of discretion to deny institution is appropriate. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 n.9.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“account for limitation 1[a], on this record, is difficult to follow. Nishida makes clear that its shoe making method involves production of material web 1 by knitting and which is “provided with a single or a plurality of unwound web part(s) 2.” Ex. 1005, 5. Nishida’s disclosure also, at this time, appears unequivocal in describing that “patterns (2)” and web material 1 (or “strip of material (1)”) are manufactured or produced “at the same time.” Id. at code (57) (Abstract). Nishida also unambiguously describes its material web 1 as including “surface areas 1.1.” Id. at 7. As is evident from, for instance, Nishida’s Figure 2, surface areas 1.1 surround unwound web parts (or patterns) 2.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“2. Proposed Ground of Obviousness Based on Nishida (Grounds 2 and 6) Petitioner contends that claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on Nishida’s teachings taken with the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. Pet. 50–54. Petitioner supports its contention with citation to Dr. Brookstein’s testimony (Ex. 1003) as well as various record exhibits (e.g., Exs. 109, 1010, 1012, 1023). Id. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner recourse to a person of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge in accounting for claims 9, 10, 19, and 20. Rather, Patent Owner simply contends that the arguments it advanced in connection with Ground 1 also applies to Ground 2. As discussed above, at this time, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner also contends that claims 11 and 21 would have been unpatentable over Nishida and Zuckerman (Ground 6). Pet. 81–84. Patent Owner also contends that the arguments it advances in conjunction with Ground 1 apply to Ground 6. Prelim. Resp. 37. We do not find those arguments availing. On the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success in its patentability challenge to claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 based on Nishida (ground 2), and its challenge to claims 11 and 21 based on Nishida and Zuckerman (ground 6).” slip op. at 19
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - Bowmar Archery LLC v. Matthew FuttereInstitutedPTAB · Jul 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00401 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review on all challenged claims based on a reasonable likelihood that claim 11 is anticipated by Vandewater.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“first and second blade members towards the extended positions.” Ex. 1001, 6:40–41. For this claim limitation, Bowmar relies on Vandewater’s disclosure of “a retaining mechanism . . . such as a biasing element with a ball bearing or a spring wheel” that is used to “retain the blades in a centered position when in their deployed position.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:55–8:2). Bowmar also provides supporting testimony from its expert to show how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Vandewater’s teaching of the biasing element in conjunction with the blade members depicted in Figure 16. See id. at 46. Futtere responds by acknowledging Bowmar’s reference to “a generic paragraph in Vandewater in which a biasing member is discussed to deploy the blade members.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (emphasis added). Nonetheless, Futtere disputes Vandewater’s so-called “generic” disclosure because “Vandewater fails to provide any enablement of such an idea as the text fails to clarify and the figures . . . fail to disclose such an embodiment.” Id. We reject Futtere’s reasoning, as it amounts to conclusory attorney argument lacking in meaningful evidentiary support. On the other hand, Bowmar provides unrebutted expert testimony to support finding that Vandewater’s biasing member is part of the embodiments of Figures 7–10 and Figures 15–20 relied upon by Bowmar and that such biasing member is used “to deploy the blade members,” as admitted by Futtere. Thus, in the absence of rebuttal evidence from Futtere, we find that Bowmar adequately explains how Vandewater’s biasing element biases the blade members to a deployed, i.e., extended, position, thereby satisfying the “biasing” limitation of claim 11. c. Conclusion For at least the foregoing reasons, Bowmar demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least independent claim 11 is anticipated by Vandewater.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Bowmar does appear to dispute Futtere’s proposed construction of “blade member,” asserting that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term does not require that it have a sharp edge, as proposed by Futtere. See Pet. 49. As discussed below, the challenge on which we institute indisputably includes a “blade member” under Futtere’s proposed construction. Thus, we do not need to provide an express construction of “blade member” at this stage. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)). The parties are free to further explore the meaning of this term at trial.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Bowmar proposes that the claim term “ferrule” should be construed as a “generally cylindrical body.” Pet. 19. Futtere responds with proposed constructions for two other claims terms, namely, that “blade member” be construed as “hav[ing] a cutting edge or flat sharp part” and that “biasing member” be construed as “a structure that pushes against another structure.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:9–10, 3:35–44, 4:5–6, 4:21–24, 4:58–62; Ex. 1003, 3:37–38, 3:63–66; Ex. 2006). At the outset, we note that Futtere does not dispute Bowmar’s proposed construction of “ferrule” and, in turn, Bowmar does not dispute Futtere’s proposed construction of “biasing member.” See Prelim. Resp. 11; Pet. 46. Thus, for purposes of institution, we adopt the parties’ proposed constructions of those claim terms.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We disagree with Futtere’s assertions. At the outset, we note that the claims merely require that the pivotal connection be located at the “forward end” of the blade members, not their forwardmost end. Vandewater’s Figures 7 and 10 clearly depict pivot connection 216 at the forward end of blade members 212 and 213. Under no circumstances do we discern how one skilled in the art would view those figures as depicting the pivot connection at a midpoint of the blades, as Futtere contends. And, without question, Bowmar relies on the embodiment of arrowhead 210, as shown in Figures 7–11, by referencing Vandewater’s disclosure of “[t]he pivot connection between blades 212 and 213 and body 214.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:33–39, Figs. 7–11). Moreover, Bowmar notes Vandewater’s disclosure that similar components of arrowhead 210 (the embodiment in Figures 7–11) may be applied to arrowhead 310 (the embodiment in Figures 15–20). See id. at 40 (citing 8:49–52). With that in mind, we find that Vandewater clearly contemplates embodiments of the arrowhead wherein a pivotal connection is located at the forward end of the blade members. See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that, although the anticipating prior art reference did not describe a specific example of a computer program that used two differently described functions, i.e., tools, together, “[the reference] did contemplate combining the disclosed functionalities.”). Futtere’s failure to address Vandewater’s express teaching of locating the pivot connection at the forward end of the blade members is fatal to its argument.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,043,177 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00240 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–42 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review “unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We determine whether to institute a post grant review on behalf of the Director. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated there is a reasonable likelihood that the petition would prevail in showing that at least one challenged is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“patient is MSI-H after enrollment in a study in which pembrolizumab is to be administered is not within the scope of the claim step “in response to determining that the colorectal cancer is microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, treating the patient with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab.” At this point in the proceeding, though, we do not interpret the claim step as meaning anything other than the treatment of colorectal cancer patients after they have been determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient. Although the term “in response to” in claim 1 requires that treatment of the patient occur after the determination that the colorectal cancer is MSI-H, we do not interpret the term to mean that other patients are not treated or that the recruitment and enrollment of patients for a clinical trial has any bearing on the steps recited in claim 1. We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Patent Owner has not directed us to evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood treating a patient “in response to” the determination that the patient has a condition excludes treatment of other patients without the condition, although it does require that treatment of the patient occur after the determination that the colorectal cancer is MSI-H. The language of claim 1 refers only to patients that are determined to have microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer, not to other patients. (See Ex. 1001, 25:40–50.) At this point in the proceeding, the record does not indicate that the treatment of patients determined not to be MSI-H is be factored into whether the teaching of treating patients determined to be MSI-H anticipates the method of claim 1. At this point in the proceeding, we construe the “in response to” limitation of claim 1 to mean that pembrolizumab is administered to a patient after the patient has been determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, regardless of whether pembrolizumab is also administered to other patients.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“H Study Record teaches treating colorectal cancer patients after they were determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient with pembrolizumab. (See MSI-H Study Record, Ex, 1005, 4 (Arms and Interventions); see also id., 2 (Study Identification), 3 (Study Description), 4–5 (Outcome Measures), 5–6 (Eligibility); see Neugut Decl., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 58–62.) At this point in the proceeding, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that there is a reasonable likelihood of a causal relationship in the MSI-H Study Record between treatment of colorectal cancer patients and the determination of their MSI status — all colorectal cancer patients determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient were treated. Whether or not other patients were treated or enrolled in the study does not detract from this teaching.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Furthermore, to the extent the MSI-H Study Record does not disclose the limitation of “in response to determining that the colorectal cancer is microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, treating the patient with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab,” the record before us supports this limitation being rendered obvious by Pernot and the MSI-H Study Record. Specifically, because Pernot teaches that colorectal cancer patients are good candidates for immunotherapy, the evidence of the current record shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to use to PD-1 inhibitors to treat colorectal cancers. (See Ex. 1006, 3741.) Additionally, the focus in the MSI-H Study Record on a clinical study treating colorectal cancer patients who had been determined to be MSI-H with prembrolizumab indicates that it would have been obvious to test for this condition before treatment. The additional references discussed by Petitioner contribute further to a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail. For example, Libson reports the successful treatment of a colorectal cancer patient having MSI-H status with a PD- 1 inhibitor (see Ex. 1057, 463-64) and Champiat discusses evaluating the clinical activity of PD-1 agents in DNA mismatch repair, such as MSI+, colorectal cancer (see Ex. 1032, e27817-5). (See Pet. 44.) Thus, based on the entire record before us, Petitioner presents a reasonable likelihood that the method of claim 1 would have been considered obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,591,393 - PTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00821 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claim 23 under the § 103 ground based on Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In light of our Decision in the ’154 IPR, the similarity of independent claims 1 and 23 and considering again Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda, along with Petitioner’s arguments and evidence in this proceeding, which are basically the same as in the ’154 IPR, we are persuaded to also institute trial as to claim 23 in this proceeding. Compare, Samsung, Paper 12, 12–19, with Pet. 6–46. As discussed above, in this proceeding Patent Owner has affirmatively waived its right to file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Paper 6. The parties have also requested “that the Board expedite consideration of the petition in IPR2024-00821 and consolidate IPR2024- 00821 with IPR2024-00154.” Ex. 2001. Considering these facts and the parties requests, as well as the record at this stage of the proceeding, including all the arguments and evidence set forth in the Petition and the sole challenge to claim 23 based on Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda, we find Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial. Pet. 6–46. Accordingly, for the same reasons we instituted trial in the ’154 IPR, including our analysis of independent claim 1, the relevant portions of which we incorporate by reference as they pertain to the same and similar limitations in independent claim 23, we also institute trial in this proceeding as to independent claim 23.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 8,594,698 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · May 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00155 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 15 are obvious over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the petition . . . and any 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); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’811 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). At this juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. 10 The current record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, it is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’811 patent and prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that “no special constructions are necessary” beyond the plain meaning of the claims. Pet. 5. For the limitations “proximity,” “number based on signal strengths,” and “device-specific target location,” Petitioner asserts the Petition shows how these features “are met in context of their plain language and also in context of the specification, and where applicable, the file history.” Id. at 5–6. On this preliminary record, Patent Owner “agrees that no formal claim construction is necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 2. After reviewing the evidence and argument presented by the parties, we determine that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g,” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“conclusory or achieved only through hindsight, Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda to achieve the claimed device-specific target location and performing actions on the portable device as a result of determining that that device is in proximity of the device-specific target location.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,341,811 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · May 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00154 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9–13, 15, 16, and 21 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, 9–10, 12–13, and 21 are obvious over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . [m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). At this juncture, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, it is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’698 patent and prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“combination of Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda, on the record before us, and as discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda, to achieve the claimed “location chosen by a user,” in this proceeding, and a “device-specific target location” in the ’155 IPR, and performing actions on the mobile device as a result of determining that that device is in proximity of the device-specific target location.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,594,698 - PTAB · May 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00153 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 17–20, and 24–26 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda for at least claims 1–10 and 26.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). At this juncture, Patent Owner does not argue the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, it is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceeding, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner submits that “no special constructions are necessary” beyond the plain meaning of the claims. Pet. 4. Similarly, for purposes of their Response, Patent Owner states that “no formal claim construction is necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 2. Currently, where neither party proposes any claim language, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner’s reasoning above lacks a rational underpinning or is gleaned only from the ’583 patent’s Specification. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as [a conclusion of obviousness] takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”). As another example, Petitioner relies on the prior art teachings, Dr. Almeroth’s testimony, and the knowledge and skills of the ordinarily skilled artisan to support its conclusions that the modifications Petitioner proposes would have been implemented by the ordinarily skilled artisan using known techniques and with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 25 (Petitioner arguing that “[g]iven the familiar features/technologies taught by Spain-I-Hunzinger (and Nanda) and state of art . . . a POSITA would [have] had the skills/knowledge/rationale to consider/implement such modifications with a reasonable expectation of success.”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–146). With respect to Petitioner’s overall rationale to combine, we acknowledge that Hunzinger and Nanda may provide different specific improvements over Spain-I, yet we understand Petitioner’s position to be that Hunzinger and Nanda show that features such as user selected target locations and numerical and algorithmic ID signal strength comparisons were well-known in the art. See Pet. 19 n.10. (“Indeed, an invention is likely obvious where it merely combines familiar elements according to at 416). Furthermore, Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as to the level and knowledge of skill in the art is unrebutted at this early stage and we do not discern any persuasive evidence on this preliminary record that modifying Spain-I’s mobile device to achieve the user selected specific target location or location-based actions of Hunzinger and Nanda would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19). Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we find persuasive Petitioner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have, for at least the above discussed reasons, been motivated to combine the teachings of Spain- I, Hunzinger, and Nanda, and would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,170,583 - PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · PGR2024-00004 · APJ Scott A Daniels · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–24 and all petition grounds, finding it more likely than not that claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–11, 13–17, and 20–24 are obvious over Emma, Butt, and Smith.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). A post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine, for the reasons set forth below, that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds presented. Therefore, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering . . . [a]lternatively, a POSITA could have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, physics, or a related engineering or discipline, plus at least two years of experience working with control circuits, sensors, kitchen appliances, or similar fields. ordinary skill in the art and states that “[t]he differences do not matter for purposes of this Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’746 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“level of smoke” Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner expressly indicate that any claim terms require express construction. See Petition 13–14; Prelim. Resp 5. However, Petitioner contends that for the phrase “level of smoke,” recited in claims 1, 15, and 22, “Patent Owner interprets ‘level of smoke’ as merely detecting smoke.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 6). Patent Owner argues that it “does not offer a special definition” and “asked the [district] court to give these terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 5, n 2. Patent Owner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would similarly understand ‘level of smoke’ when read in the full context of the intrinsic record.” Id. in light of the specification, we understand “level of smoke” as a predetermined level of smoke “indicative of a dangerous condition” as the specification of the ’746 patent explains. Ex. 1001, 15:43–44, see also id. at 15:63–65 (The ’746 patent describing “[t]he determination of a level of smoke corresponding to a dangerous condition.”). To the extent the parties disagree, they may address this issue more directly in subsequent briefing. slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“POSITA to reasonably combine Emma with a smoke sensor reference.” Prelim. Resp. 44. We agree that Emma does not disclose a smoke sensor, but Petitioner has provided other prior art references, namely Butt and Smith, and presented several reasons, namely safety reasons, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider adding a smoke detector from Butt and Smith to Emma’s microwave oven. Pet. 24, 74–75. Obviousness is not determined from the perspective of the inventors or authors of a single prior art reference. Rather, obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art. It is only that hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent prior art. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Petitioner argues, for instance, that Butt teaches the fire safety aspects of “a controller for interrupting a supply of electricity to an appliance upon detection of a trigger, such as [s]moke.” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1015, 1:16– 18). Dr. Horenstein testifies that from a safety perspective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “combine[d] the additional kitchen-safety appliance features of Butt with the Emma microwave/refrigerator so as to enable the Emma microwave to shut down upon the detection of smoke, and to reenable the Emma microwave for a further cooking session when the smoke had cleared.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 124. Where Butt arguably discloses a smoke detector external to an appliance, Dr. Horenstein testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to “Smith to include the smoke sensor in operative connection with the microwave oven with the reset functionality disclosed by Butt for the added benefit of reusing the microwave oven.” Id. ¶ 127 (emphasis added). each directed towards shutting down a component of the device in response to a sensor output indicative of an unwanted condition.” Id. ¶ 127. Dr. Horenstein testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have combined the elements as disclosed by known methods for the purposes of modifying Emma’s microwave / refrigerator combination to include Smith’s smoke sensor to be operatively connected with its cooking area and to include Butt’s smoke sensor and reset functionality.” Id. ¶ 126. Dr. Horenstein explains that inclusion of Butt’s reset functionality with Smith’s smoke sensor operatively connected with the cooking area into Emma would result in such elements merely performing the same function as they do separately, i.e., sensing smoke to withdraw electrical power from an electrical cooking appliance and then re-enabling the electrical cooking appliance. Id. Moreover, Dr. Horenstein testifies that the prior art, for example, Butt, specifically recognized the need to solve the problem of fires in the home started by cooking appliances. Id. ¶ 128 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:22–44). Butt explains, that “[h]ome fires are a serious problem in the United States. The National Fire Protection Association reports that between the years 1999- 2002, for example, there were 114,000 reported home fires associated with cooking alone.” Ex. 1015, 122–25. Similarly, Smith expressly teaches “[a] method and apparatus for anticipating the occurrence of a fire in the cooking cavity of a microwave oven.” Ex. 1014, Abstract.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,674,746
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.