- Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00770 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Moriarty and Phares; claims 6 and 7 were not shown unpatentable over either asserted ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, we do not need to define the outer bounds of the term “pharmaceutical batch” because the parties’ dispute over this term centers on the issue of storage stability.7 Patent Owner argues “the correct construction 6 The parties use the terms “purification” and “isolation” interchangeably in the papers. We use the term “isolation” in this Decision. 7 The parties agree on the “pharmaceutical” aspect of the term. We note the ’901 patent defines “pharmaceutically acceptable” as “being useful in preparing a pharmaceutical composition that is generally safe, non-toxic and neither biologically nor otherwise undesirable and includes being useful for veterinary use as well as human pharmaceutical use.” Ex. 1001, 5:27–31.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“[A]n invention is construed not only in the light of the claims, but also with reference to the file wrapper or prosecution history in the Patent Office.” Graham, 383 U.S. 1, 33. “The prosecution history of a related patent can be relevant if . . . it addresses a limitation in common with the patent in suit.” Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 265 F.3d 1294, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“When multiple patents derive from the same initial application, the prosecution history regarding a claim limitation in any patent that has issued applies with equal force to subsequently issued patents that contain the same claim limitation.”). Here, the Specification of the ’901 patent includes the same language “crude treprostinil salts can be stored as raw material at ambient temperature” addressed in the prosecution of the parent ’623 application. Ex. 1001, 17:5–6. More importantly, challenged claim 6 recites the same limitation “preparing a pharmaceutical product . . . after storage” the applicant expressly interpreted there. See Ex. 2028, 193. Because “the same claim limitation is at issue, prosecution disclaimer made on the same limitation in an ancestor application will attach,” the applicant’s interpretation of “storing”/“storage” during the prosecution of the ’623 application applies here. See Omega Eng’g, Inc., v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003). slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Sunovion Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here, step (c) of challenged claim 1 requires “contacting the solution comprising treprostinil from step (b) with a base to form a salt of treprostinil.” Ex. 1001, 17:27–29 (emphasis added). The claim language itself, thus, dictates that the solution formed in step (b), and not treprostinil isolated from step (b), is the starting material for forming a salt in step (c). The Specification of the ’901 patent supports our determination. Indeed, the Specification touts that one of the advantages of the disclosed process is that “the treprostinil salts can be synthesized from the solution of treprostinil without isolation,” because “[t]he impurities carried over from intermediate steps (i.e. alkylation of triol and hydrolysis of benzindene nitrile) are removed during the carbon treatment and the salt formation step.” Ex. 1001, 17:1–11. As a result, we agree with the argument presented in the Patent Owner Response that “claim 1 requires the solution in which treprostinil is formed be used directly in the next salt-forming step without isolating treprostinil in between.” See PO Resp. 11.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“pharmaceutical manufacturing.” Id. at 23. We find Patent Owner’s definition of the skill level too narrow. Patent Owner relies on the declaration of Dr. Pinal, who testifies that the ’901 patent is “focused on the production of pharmaceutical compositions and products, on a commercial batch-size scale.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 91; see also id. ¶ 92 (opining that organic and medicinal chemists do not have the “requisite skill set for the large-scale manufacture” of drugs); PO Resp. 24 (arguing an ordinarily skilled artisan is aware of “problems encountered in preparing a commercial-scale pharmaceutical product”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,604,901 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,604,901 - Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00300 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 21–26 were held unpatentable as obvious over Huber, Everett, and Lexer; claims 2, 27, 40, and 42 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 44 and 45 were entered.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“(7) Claim 1 Conclusion After having analyzed the entirety of the trial record and assigning” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“For the above reasons, Petitioner has not met its burden to” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS 8,690,330 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,690,330 - Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2021 · IPR2019-01234 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–5, 15–17, 23–26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 8, 9, 19, 20, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed skill level, that is, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or similar field, and at least two years of experience in a relevant field such as telecommunications or multimedia communications. Inst. Dec. 20. We also agreed with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill would have some familiarity with the design and implementation of VoIP and multimedia networks. Id. We did not agree, however, that the level of qualifications included monitoring and maintaining VoIP and multimedia networks, as Petitioner asserted, and therefore declined to adopt those requirements. Id. ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution to include “familiarity with the design and implementation of VoIP and multimedia networks,” but further described this requirement to include other requirements: an understanding of the techniques employed by network firewalls and the issues they present with respect to establishing and conducting multimedia communication sessions; an understanding of the performance demands placed on the network by multimedia communications, and the constraints that such demands place on processing and security measures that could be adopted; and a recognition of the distinctions between prior art firewall traversal solutions and the inventions of the ’978 Patent. PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner refers to GPAC, which identifies the factor of the “type of problems encountered in the art” as a consideration in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 22 (citing In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). We have reviewed the relevant technology and claims of the ’978 patent, as well as the technology of the asserted prior art, and we adopt the same qualifications as those adopted in the Decision on Institution because they are commensurate with the relevant technology. These qualifications are similar to presented by Petitioner, with the” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner relies on the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 20. Patent Owner indicates that its arguments are also based upon the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 22. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of the terms of the claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“As discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that Kirchhoff discloses the use of SSL, a protocol that uses data encryption (Ex. 1005, 8:47–49). We also agree with Petitioner that Krtolica discloses the use of HTTP protocols on port 80 (Ex. 1004, 6:23–24), and does so with a goal of maintaining high network security (id. at 1:7–10, 2:33–36). As Kirchhoff discloses, and Dr. Lavian’s testimony supports, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware that port 443, rather than port 80, would be used for secure web connections using SSL, which includes the use of encryption, and this would have resulted in enhanced network security. See Ex. 1005, 3:38–41; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52, 69, 108. As Dr. Lavian testifies, SSL/TLS was the most widely deployed security protocol in the world and the well-known use of SSL in HTTPS protocol enables secure web-based e-commerce. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69, 108; Ex. 1035 ¶ 8; Ex. 1006, 5. And, Krtolica has a stated goal to maintain network security. Ex. 1004, 1:7–10, 2:33–37. We find this evidence provides a sufficient rational underpinning in support of obviousness for combining the teachings of Krtolica and Kirchhoff. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Owner’s arguments that use of encryption in SSL was optional and adding encryption would allegedly undermine network security. Nor do we find persuasive the argument that the Petitioner’s motivation to combine based on efficiency is insufficient, because Petitioner relies on another rationale for the combination of Krtolica and Kirchhoff, that is, enhanced network security, also discussed above. We additionally do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s arguments that combining Krtolica and Kirchhoff would render the system of Krtolica unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because, as Petitioner argues, this assertion is contradicted by the state of the art at the time. See Pet. Reply 9. As discussed above, Dr. Lavian explains that there were known systems having firewalls with SSL traversal at the time of the invention. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53, 59–65; Ex. 1035 ¶ 20; Ex. 1014. Moreover, the ’978 patent uses encryption with firewalls using a single-port protocol, and Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in that patent that indicates that the use of encryption with a single-port protocol was inventive in that the system, or that encryption had to be done in a special manner. See Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (at 311, 341), Fig. 5 (503, 508)); see also Ex. 1001, 6:4–8. In a similar vein, Patent Owner argues that due to incompatibilities the combination of SSL with Krtolica would be unsuccessful, and we address this issue below.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Where the prior art contains “apparently conflicting” teachings (i.e., where some references teach the combination and others teach away from it) each reference must be considered “for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill . . . consider[ing] the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Hosner, AES encryption appears to have one of the higher processing speeds of the algorithms tested. See Ex. 1006, 23. Further, the ’978 patent itself supports the acceptable performance of AES encryption in single-port protocol, stating that “[a]ny method or algorithm of encryption may be used” with its invention “including, but not limited to 128-bit find Patent Owner’s argument on the use of AES to be persuasive. We have reviewed Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence as to how the combination of Kirchhoff and Krtolica teach the limitations of claims 4, 16, and 24, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. Pet. 75–76, 81.” slip op. at 65
Patent outcomesUS 7,710,978 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,710,978 - Polygroup Limited Mco v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2020 · IPR2016-01612 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Remand
On remand, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’186 patent were held unpatentable; other remanded challenged claims were not, and substitute claims 29 and 30 were allowed.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated our Original Decision in part and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd, 759 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019). After conferring with the parties, we permitted additional briefing to address the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 196.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“electrical connection in a single step (e.g., “‘when’ the mechanical connection is made, an electrical connection is also made”) as Patent Owner alleges. Rather, claim 1 requires “a first trunk electrical connector” and “a second trunk electrical connector” with “the second tree portion [being] electrically connectable to the first tree portion such that a portion of the first trunk electrical connector of the first trunk portion contacts a portion of the second trunk electrical connector of the second trunk portion.” Although the claim also requires that “the second tree portion is mechanically coupleable to the first tree portion about a central vertical axis,” the claim permits that mechanical connection to be independent of the electrical connection. Giving claim 1 its proper reading, there is no dispute that Miller teaches first and second trunk electrical connectors or that its tree portions are coupleable about a central vertical axis as outlined in the Petition. See Pet. I 45–48.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner contends that one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings based on those from Lessner. Pet. II 65–70. Petitioner reasons, for example, that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to enhance the mechanical and electrical connections between the electrical contacts sets and wiring assemblies of Miller[] with the detachable electrical connectors of Lessner” for “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly.” Id. at 65–66 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner further reasons that “the detachable connectors of Lessner provide a quick-connect engagement allowing the builder to easily and quickly attach the wires to the terminals on the trunk connector during assembly,” which “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts.” Id. at 66. Petitioner’s contentions as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings are unpersuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner cited Miller’s plug and socket connectors as corresponding to the recited trunk connectors. Petitioner’s proposed modification in the Miller alone challenge adds an additional connection point in Miller’s plug and socket connectors, further complicating assembly, rather than providing greater “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly” as alleged. Petitioner’s additional reasoning that the proposed modification “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts” is equally unpersuasive. The only difference resulting from the modification is that the plug and socket connectors could be removed from their respective wiring assemblies. That is, it provides for removal of one connector by providing yet another connector, which fails to provide a benefit because Miller’s plug and socket connectors are loose, rather than fixed within the trunk portions like Patent Owner’s connectors. For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability of claim 7 of the ’186 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“D. Secondary Considerations As explained in the Original Decision, Patent Owner provides evidence related to non-obviousness of the claims. Original Decision 43–60. Considering that evidence, as explained in the Original Decision, relative to the fact that Miller alone teaches each element of these claims in a single embodiment16, we determine that Patent Owner’s evidence does not outweigh Petitioner’s case of obviousness for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has established by the preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable. Petitioner has failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,454,187 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,454,187 - Polygroup Limited Mco v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2020 · IPR2016-01610 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Remand
On remand, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’186 patent were held unpatentable; other remanded challenged claims were not shown unpatentable, and substitute claims 29 and 30 were allowed.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandMixed
“On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated our Original Decision in part and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd, 759 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019). After conferring with the parties, we permitted additional briefing to address the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 196.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“and the second wire are detachably connected to the first trunk electrical connector of the first trunk portion.” Petitioner acknowledges that “Miller does not expressly teach that the wiring assembly is ‘modular’ or ‘separably connected.’” Pet. II 65. Petitioner contends that “assemblies for providing a detachable connection between electrical contact sets and wiring harnesses were well-known in the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that “Lessner teaches a ‘quick-disconnect electrical connector for receiving and releasably retaining a male tab connector’ and a [person of skill in the art (POSA)] would recognize that it may be used to create detachable connections between the electrical contacts of a connector or plug, and the wires of a wiring assembly.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 1:10–11; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings based on those from Lessner. Pet. II 65–70. Petitioner reasons, for example, that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to enhance the mechanical and electrical connections between the electrical contacts sets and wiring assemblies of Miller[] with the detachable electrical connectors of Lessner” for “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly.” Id. at 65–66 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner further reasons that “the detachable connectors of Lessner provide a quick-connect engagement allowing the builder to easily and quickly attach the wires to the terminals on the trunk connector during assembly,” which “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts.” Id. at 66. Petitioner’s contentions as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings are unpersuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner cited Miller’s plug and socket connectors as corresponding to the recited trunk connectors. Petitioner’s proposed modification in the Miller alone challenge adds an additional connection point in Miller’s plug and socket connectors, further complicating assembly, rather than providing greater “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly” as alleged. Petitioner’s additional reasoning that the proposed modification “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts” is equally unpersuasive. The only difference resulting from the modification is that the plug and socket connectors could be removed from their respective wiring assemblies. That is, it provides for removal of one connector by providing yet another connector, which fails to provide a benefit because Miller’s plug and socket connectors are loose, rather than fixed within the trunk portions like Patent Owner’s connectors. For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability of claim 7 of the ’186 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedUnpatentable
“D. Secondary Considerations As explained in the Original Decision, Patent Owner provides evidence related to non-obviousness of the claims. Original Decision 43–60. Considering that evidence, as explained in the Original Decision, relative to the fact that Miller alone teaches each element of these claims in a single embodiment16, we determine that Patent Owner’s evidence does not outweigh Petitioner’s case of obviousness for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has established by the preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable. Petitioner has failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“The figure reproduced above is a portion of Miller’s Figure 2, which is a front, partial section view of its artificial tree, along with Petitioner’s annotations noting Miller’s electrical connections (circled in red). Pet. I 29. As seen above, Petitioner cites Miller’s plug and socket connection as the electrical connection recited in the claims. See Pet. I 33 (“Miller also teaches that wires 22 of trunks 3, 5 are electrically connectable via plug and socket connectors of Fig. 2.”), 42, 57–58 (presenting similar contentions for claims 20 and 28). The problem with Petitioner’s contentions that rely on Miller alone is that the electrical connection in Miller is independent of the mechanical connection of tree portions (i.e., the mechanical connection does not result in the electrical connection in the manner claimed). For at least this reason, Petitioner’s challenges to claims 10, 20, and 28 based on Miller alone fail.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,454,186 mixed§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,454,186 - Ingenico Inc. v. Ioengine, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 21, 2020 · IPR2019-00929 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 55, 57–63, 67–72, 74, 77, 78, 81–87, 89, 92–98, 100, 103, 104, 106–112, 116–121, 123, and 126–129 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the Board’s adopted definition of a POSITA. PO Resp. 3; Ex. 2139 ¶¶ 12, 13. Both parties’ experts state, however, that their opinions would not change based upon which party’s definition of a POSITA is adopted. Ex. 2139 ¶ 13; Ex. 2110, 240:24–241:6.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has shown by a” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“meet claims 74, 89, 100, and 123 because Davis “does not have two different devices on the client side.” PO Resp. 63–64. Patent Owner’s argument does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s obviousness case, which relies on Iida, not Davis, to teach two devices on the client side—Iida’s digital camera 12 (a portable device) and terminal 14. Pet. 13–16, 60; Ex. 1003 ¶ 57, Figs. 1A, 1B. Furthermore, in Petitioner’s combination, a digital certificate is substituted for Iida’s user ID and password. Pet. 61. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention that Iida discloses transmitting a user ID and password stored in memory 48 of camera 12 to image server 18 through terminal 14. Id. at 43–44 (addressing claim 71; citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110, 113). Accordingly, Petitioner persuades us that the combination of Iida and Davis discloses the limitations of claims 74, 89, 100, and 123 (and claims 71, 86, 97, and 120 from which they depend).” slip op. at 89
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“First, Patent Owner has not argued that the licensed products are coextensive with the claims of the ’703 Patent, accordingly, there is no presumption of a nexus. See Lectrosonics, Paper 33 at 33.” slip op. at 94
Patent outcomesUS 9,774,703 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,774,703 - Clearone, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00683 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–33, and 35–40 are unpatentable; claims 6 and 34 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted for substitute claims 57–67.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“establish that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Motion is dismissed as moot, and Patent Owner’s Motion is denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art To establish the level of ordinary skill in the art, we look to various” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For the foregoing reasons, we determine the term “rotationally offset” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“date it becomes publicly accessible. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication under § 102 is a legal conclusion based on underlying fact findings.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “A reference is considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,565,493 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,565,493 - Apple, Inc. v. Uusi, LLC D/B/A NartronSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00358 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 94, 96, 101–106, 115, and 116 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 37–39, 97–99, and 107–109 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claims. Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”). In the Institution Decision, we determined Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to at least one 1 As discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that claim 117 is not challenged in this proceeding. challenged claim, and we instituted trial on all claims and all grounds in the Petition. Inst. Dec. 67–68.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMixed
“The ‘183 patent grew out of a “study” which the inventor performed to determine the optimal scan frequencies for close-proximity touch arrays. The ‘183 patent describes this study, and then reports its conclusion: “higher frequencies” are optimal. The ‘183 patent’s “switching circuit” incorporates the “use of higher frequencies,” as suggested by the study.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 5,796,183 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,796,183 - Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01033 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and claims 1 and 17 are obvious over Bednar and Gunther; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,922 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’922 patent”). VLSI Technology LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8–9; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 45
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and (2) claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar and Gunther. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 1 is anticipated by Bednar or (2) claims 4–6, 18, and 19 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar, Gunther, and Willingham. The chart below summarizes our conclusions.” slip op. at 91
Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,004,922 - Hoya Optical Labs Of America, Inc. v. Inland Diamond Products Co.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00178 · APJ Michael G Mcmanus · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4–6, and 9–11 were not proven unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The claims at issue are apparatus claims rather than process claims. Accordingly, no specific means of achieving the interference fit is required. We construe “interference fit” as a structural limitation specifying the relationship of the bevel and frame. Even if construed as a product-by-process limitation (with the process being the insertion of a lens within a frame of lesser size), “determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Patent Owner frames its proposed construction in terms of the process by which the fit comes about, but says little about the structural characteristics of the interference fit upon assembly. The Specification teaches that pressure upon the lens would lead to compression of the vertex. Ex. 1001, 4:40–55. That the vertex is in a compressed state is separately required in all claims by the “in compression” limitation. Id. at 8:54, 9:24. In view of the foregoing and in light of the parties’ arguments following institution, we modify our preliminary construction to recognize that an interference fit in this context implicates associated compressive forces. We, therefore, construe “interference fit” to mean “a relationship of the bevel of the lens and the receiving channel bottom of the eyeglass frame where such parts are in contact so as to exert frictional and compressive forces that secure the lens in place.”” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyNot reached
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner sets forth a rationale to combine the teachings of Gottschald and Schaeffer. Id. at 20. Petitioner argues that the teachings of Gottschald are applicable to the prescription lenses of Schaeffer as follows: POSITA would have been motivated by these teachings to use the method and device of Gottschald, with no change in its function, to edge the prescription plastic lens blank described by Schaeffer “so that the spectacle lens edge machining directly delivers a spectacle lens which is suitable for the selected spectacle frame, which has been ground to shape and which is provided with a bevel” (Gottschald, p. 6), and thereby to obtain the expected result of a “prescription plastic lens for use in an eyeglass frame” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 20. Patent Owner does not challenge the adequacy of Petitioner’s rationale with specificity. See PO Resp. 48–54. Rather, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on “mere conclusory statements” throughout the Petition. Id. at 49. Such a generalized argument has little force. Having reviewed the evidence as a whole, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Gottschald (regarding lens edging) and Schaeffer (regarding prescription lenses) in the manner Petitioner proposes.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
Patent outcomesUS 8,636,360 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,636,360
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.