- Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01477 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 3–16 are anticipated by Gelfand, and claims 1–16 are also obvious over the listed combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contention that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art may not comprise a multidisciplinary team, but may be “a member” of that same multidisciplinary team, strikes us as a distinction without a difference. See id. Thus, although we disagree with Patent Owner’s analysis, we rephrase part one of our provisionally adopted definition to reference “a member of a multidisciplinary team.”” slip op. at 31
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 34
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’871 Patent “teaches activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at pages 11–12 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 30–31 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 46
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“F.3d at 1354–55. This requirement is not excused in IPR proceedings. See Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 F. App’x 443, 450 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]egardless of the forum, prior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Considering all the argument and evidence of record, we find that Patent Owner has not overcome the presumption with respect to Gelfand for at least the reasons set forth on pages 12–24 of Petitioner’s Reply, which we adopt in full and briefly summarize below.” slip op. at 51
Patent outcomesUS 10,653,871 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,653,871 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01327 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–9, 29, and 30 on the § 103 ground over Hardin ’665 and Salmre.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s uncontested argument and evidence regarding the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre, and we find, for the reasons provided by Petitioner and on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combined teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre satisfy the elements of the claims, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Analogous artInstituted
“Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify Petitioner sets forth a detailed analysis showing how the combined teachings of the references meet the elements of claims 1–9, 29, and 30. Pet. 28–63. In particular, Petitioner relies on Hardin ’665 as teaching most of the elements of the claims, but relies, on Salmre to meet the claim elements reciting application programs on mobile devices that can reserve geographic areas and a content delivery platform that can be implemented on the same mobile device as the application program. Id. at 29. Additionally, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 63–69.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify Petitioner sets forth a detailed analysis showing how the combined teachings of the references meet the elements of claims 1–9, 29, and 30. Pet. 28–63. In particular, Petitioner relies on Hardin ’665 as teaching most of the elements of the claims, but relies, on Salmre to meet the claim elements reciting application programs on mobile devices that can reserve geographic areas and a content delivery platform that can be implemented on the same mobile device as the application program. Id. at 29. Additionally, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 63–69.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“Objective Considerations of Nonobviousness Neither party presents evidence of objective considerations of nonobviousness at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,049,387 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitutedPTAB · Feb 1, 2023 · IPR2022-01299 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on 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
“For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’127 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on each of the Grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); see also Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018).1 A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not address the above definitions in its Preliminary Response but its expert, Mr. Goldberg, disagrees with Petitioner’s first definition insofar as it requires an academic discipline emphasizing both electrical and thermal technologies. Ex. 2051 ¶ 16. In this respect, Mr. Goldberg states that “he is unaware of such an academic discipline being available, whereas, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Anthony, appears to assert that he has worked with “many such persons.” Cf. Ex. 2051 ¶ 16 with Ex. 1003 ¶ 21. Mr. Goldberg states that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical systems, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with thermal management of electrical systems and capture and processing of data or information, including physiological monitoring technologies. Alternatively, the person could have had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline. Ex. 2051 ¶ 16. Despite providing an alternative definition of one of ordinary skill in the art, Mr. Goldberg indicates that his opinions with respect to the applied. Id. On the current record, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definitions, as” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“At this stage of the proceeding, we find the language “to reliably estimate LED wavelengths” and “used to estimate wavelengths of multiple LEDs” descriptive of intended use of the underlying terms rather than descriptive of what they are. Although Patent Owner points to evidence that certain embodiments of the ’127 patent use “thermal mass” and “bulk temperature” in the manner described in Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, we decline to import these use limitations into the claim terms. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) Reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from reading limitations of the specification into a claim, to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim. We further note that Patent Owner fails to evidence the meets and bounds of “reliably estimate[ing] LED wavelengths,” such that the construction appears indefinite. In this respect, we note the Specification’s teaching that some embodiments include “a relatively significant thermal mass, which stabilizes and normalizes the bulk temperature so that the thermistor measurement of bulk temperature is meaningful.” Ex. 1001, 10:62–11:4. Considering the intrinsic evidence, we understand a “meaningful” temperature reading in the context of the ’127 patent to be one on a scale relevant to estimating LED wavelengths. aspects of construction upon which the parties appear to agree (see e.g., Prelim. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1012, 213)), we provisionally construe “thermal mass” as a mass having resistance to temperature change on a scale relevant to estimating LED wavelengths, and “bulk temperature” as a temperature representative of all or substantially all of a thermal mass.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“With respect to motivation to combine, Petitioner posits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to implement a thermal core as suggested by Chadwick in Yamada’s board/substrate 15” to achieve various benefits, such as to “reduc[e] the amount of heat transmitted to the patient and increasing the ‘exposure time’ by which the patient can don the sensor without discomfort or heat-related safety concerns,” and/or “mitigate heat-induced spectral shifts in the wavelengths of light emitted by LEDs” Pet. 15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–48. With respect to the first of these, Patent Owner argues that motivation is lacking because Chadwick’s metal core heat (citing Ex. Parte Burns, Appeal No. 2016-00351, 2017 WL 2132361, *2 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2017)). This would appear contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions that “Yamada provides no discussion regarding the purpose, function, or use of substrate 15,” whereas the purpose of Chadwick’s metal core is to dissipate heat and act “as a heat sink to cool the electronics.” Prelim. Resp. 35, 37 (citations omitted). As such, we do not find Patent Owner’s argument availing. With respect to Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chadwick and Yamada to “mitigate heat-induced spectral shifts in the wavelengths of light emitted by LEDs,” Patent Owner argues that “the claimed invention does not reduce wavelength shift; in fact, the ’127 patent accepts wavelength shift and provides a solution to compensate for it.” Prelim. Resp. 42. Accordingly, Patent Owner asserts, motivation is lacking because “[r]educing wavelength shift points in a different direction from the invention.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 2051 ¶ 80. This argument is also unavailing because, on the current record, claim 7 does require a solution to compensate for wavelength shift. See Section II.C.2, above. Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed motivation does not “point[] in a different direction,” as Patent Owner contends. Patent Owner similarly argues that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable expectation of success because “[t]here is no evidence anyone before the inventors would have expected that a thermal mass could be designed to provide a bulk temperature to reliably estimate multiple LED wavelengths.” Again, Patent Owner’s argument is predicated on Patent Owner’s interpretation of claim 7, which we disagree with on the current record for the reasons provided above. See Section II.C.1–2. We do not read Moreover, as explained more fully above, LED wavelength has a known relationship to temperature and Petitioner has reasonably shown that LEDs of the Yamada/Chadwick combination would be thermally coupled to the thermal core, and thus dependent on the bulk temperature of the thermal core.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,761,127 - PTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2022-01224 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–20 on the asserted §103 ground over Votruba, Jaquet, Finn, and Seton; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“persuaded the circumstances before us warrant discretionary denial of institution. In certain circumstances, the Board has exercised its discretion to deny institution pursuant to § 314(a) based on the advanced state of a district court proceeding in which the challenged patent is asserted. See, Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 15. Here, even though there is a parallel district court proceeding, “Metrasens will not assert in the above-captioned litigation (1:21-cv-01216) the same invalidity grounds asserted in the IPR, or any other ground that Metrasens reasonably could have raised in the IPR petition, against the corresponding claims.” Ex. 1016; see also Pet. 74. In light of that stipulation, we decline to discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. See Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, at 3, 7–8, Memorandum, June 21, 2022.6” slip op. at 7
- Other 314aDenied
“discretion to deny institution based on “egregious behaviors.” Patent Owner’s assertions relate to Petitioner’s submission of Exhibit 1012, “the Mednovus document.”7 See, e.g. Prelim. Resp. 25. However, other than noting that the Mednovus document was submitted to the USPTO, but not made of record during patent prosecution (Pet. 7), the Petition does not rely on the Mednovus document. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, cites to the Mednovus document twice. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27, 29. Petitioner’s declarant cites the document for positioning the doorway of an MRI room based on the magnetic plot line of the device and the existence of a fringe magnetic field associated with an MRI machine. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27, 29. The Petition, however, relies on Votruba for this limitation and not the Mednovus document. See Pet. 38; Ex. 1006, 7:33–35 (the machine 7 Exhibit 1012, Titled “Third Party Mednovus’ First Emergency Protest Under 37 CFR 1.91 Against Kopp Pending U.S. Application Serial No. 10/095,543,” submitted on Feb. 8, 2009, but not entered into the record during patent prosecution. “generates significant, wide-ranging ‘fringe’ fields extending to considerable distances from the machine”). Because the Petition does not rely on the Mednovus document in any ground, its existence does not affect our decision, and we need not consider whether it constitutes a printed publication. Under the circumstances here, we do not view Petitioner’s challenge to the ’128 patent as contrary to the AIA’s purposes. “The AIA was designed to encourage the filing of meritorious patentability challenges, by any person who is not the patent owner, in an effort to further improve patent quality.” Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI, LLC v. Celgene Corp., IPR2015-01092, Paper 19 at 4 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2015). For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the argument and evidence presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’128 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s first definition, because it encompasses Petitioner’s alternate definition of the level of skill in the art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates 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 required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,489,128 - Apple, Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00972 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 16, 18–20, 22, and 23 over Shmueli and Osorio; remaining claims over combinations adding Lee-2013 or Chan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that we should reject our originally proposed definition in light of, for example, Petitioner’s proposed definition before the ITC, which required an engineering background and “at least two years of relevant work experience designing wearable devices and/or sensors for measuring physiological signals.” PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2004, 6). As noted at oral argument, however, Patent Owner truncates the full extent of Petitioner’s ITC definition, which further states that “a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art could also be a person with a medical degree (MD or DO) and with at least two years of work experience using biomedical sensors and/or analyzing their data (in the context of industry, in biomedical academic research, or in practice treating patients).” Ex. 2004, 6; Tr. 40:13– 41:10. Patent Owner’s assertion that our originally proposed definition, would “classify all cardiologists as [persons of ordinary skill in the art],” is well taken. PO Resp. 25. Accordingly, we apply the following modified definition, which is consistent with Petitioner’s representation before the ITC. For the purpose of this proceeding, a person of ordinary skill in the art may be a member of an interdisciplinary team including persons with backgrounds in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and/or cardiology, and having at least two years of relevant work experience designing, using, or analyzing data from, cardiac monitoring devices.” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“Dr. Efimov has extensive experience in the design of cardiac monitoring and related technologies, but Petitioner asserts that he “is unable to offer credible testimony on the meaning of [relevant] medical terminology,” because he is not a doctor. Reply 28; Sur-reply 22 (arguing that “Dr. Efimov is a recognized expert in the field of clinical cardiac electrophysiology”). Considering the totality of Dr. Efimov’s background, including extensive work on the physiology, diagnostics, and therapy of cardiac arrhythmias, we do not adopt Petitioner’s position. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 2–15. In light of the above, we determine that Dr. Chaitman and Dr. Efimov are both qualified to testify as to the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we, nevertheless, consider the weight of both parties’ experts on a particular topic in light of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective background. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“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. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner offers a construction for the claim term “discordance,” proposing that it should be construed to mean “when a first sensed parameter value would not be expected to coincide with a second sensed parameter value.” Pet. 8–10. Patent Owner does not propose a competing construction and, in the ITC Investigation, proposed “[n]o construction required” for the term “discordance.” Ex. 2009, 4. Having reviewed the evidence and argument of record, we determine that we do not need to construe the term “discordance” in order to resolve this dispute. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. See e.g., Ex. 1047 (medical dictionary defining arrhythmias as “[a]n abnormal rate or rhythm of the heartbeat” caused by “a disturbance in the electrical impulses within the heart”); Ex. 1001, 4:4 (“Heart function is also measured in terms of regularity of rhythm. . . . When there is an abnormality of rhythm, the condition is typically referred to as an arrhythmia.”). Although it is not clear that the term is in dispute, for clarity, we understand the term “arrhythmia” as used in the context of the ’941 patent to mean: a cardiac condition in which the electrical activity of the heart is irregular or is faster (tachycardia) or slower (bradycardia) than normal.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,638,941 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,638,941 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityInstitutedPTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00989 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“§ 315(b) is unavailing. Rule 42.104(b) requires a petitioner to state in its petition “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3), (b)(4). The Petition states “[t]he Board construes the claims ‘using the same claim construction standard that would be used’ in district courts.” Pet. 20. We disagree that Rule 42.104(b) or the CTPG requires Petitioner to make any specific statement if it takes the position that no express construction of claim terms is required. Rather, the CTPG states that “a petitioner may include a statement that the claim terms require no express construction.” CTPG 44.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“We use a two-part framework to analyze a request to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). First, we determine “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Second, if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, then we consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims.” Id. In applying this framework, we refer to the non-exclusive factors delineated in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph). These factors are: a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; b) the cumulative nature of asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; d) the extent of overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Id. at 17–18.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in 2003 would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner further states that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claims would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78). Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 9. We find, on the current record, that the ’539 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’539 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner propose no express construction for any claim term, at least with regard to the alleged obviousness grounds of unpatentability. See Pet. 20. In regard to the alleged anticipation grounds, Petitioner contends “the patient is in an awake state when there is an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep,” and asserts this is an “implied construction of ‘an awake state’ based on [Patent Owner’s] infringement allegations” in district court. Id. at 68, 70. Patent Owner proposes no express construction of any claim term and states “no claim terms are in controversy.” Prelim. Resp. 10. In light of our determinations below, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,539 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00245 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe; claims 2 and 3 are also unpatentable as obvious over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above. slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00990 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable under §103: claims 2–3 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet, and claims 2–4 over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s option (a) is substantially the same as Petitioners’ proposal—both require a bachelor’s degree in the same or a related subject and two additional years of related work experience. Patent Owner’s option (b) adds an additional option based on work experience in lieu of a formal degree. Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The terms storage module and storage capacitance, as used herein, are distinguishable from the terms holding module and holding capacitance, respectively. Holding modules and holding capacitances, as used above, identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of “holding” a voltage value. Storage modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal. Ex. 2029, 66:59–67 (emphases added); see Ex. 2016, 39–40 (discussing Patent Owner’s prior arguments to construe “storage module” in IPR2014- 00948). When defining certain terms in a section titled “General Terminology,” the ’551 patent repeatedly uses the phrase “when used herein” in combination with the phrase “refer(s) to.” See, e.g., Ex. 2029, 13:56–15:27 (mentioning a term followed by “when used herein,” followed by “refers to,” followed by a definition). For example, the ’551 patent states, “[t]he term digital signal, when used herein, refers to a signal that changes between discrete states, as contrasted to a signal that is continuous.” Id. at 15:7–9. As shown, the ’551 patent defines “digital signal” by stating “when used herein” followed by “refers to.” And, the same sentence also provides a comparison between “digital signal” and a signal that is continuous. Even though the passage describing “storage module” is not listed under the “General Terminology” section of the ’551 patent, the passage provides the same indications that the patentees clearly and unambiguously intended to define the term “storage module” by stating “as used herein” and “refer to”—hallmarks that the patentees were providing a lexicographic definition of the term. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An applicant’s use of the phrase ‘refers to’ generally indicates an intention to define a term.”) (citing In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 731 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Additionally, as with the term “digital signal,” the above-passage provides a comparison between “storage module” and “holding module” and uses the definitions of the terms to compare and contrast them. “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Additional Terms Petitioners propose that we construe the following three terms: “frequency down-conversion module,” “subtractor module,” and “under-samples.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner responds to Petitioners’ constructions for “frequency down-conversion module” and “subtractor module.” PO Resp. 39–41. On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - Pfizer, Inc. v. Uniqure Biopharma B.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00925 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 7–10, 14–16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Stafford and Manno, and Stafford, Manno, and Schuettrumpf.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, although we agreed with Patent Owner that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have experience in the treatment of coagulopathy, we applied a broader definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated by Drs. Wang and Pedersen. Dec. Inst. 22; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 48; Ex. 1094 ¶ 19. We determined a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the skill of a research team working to develop factor IX variants and gene therapies, where that team would include (1) one or more researchers with experience in the fields of molecular biology and virology and the use of gene therapy for treatment of coagulopathies, working together with (2) one or more individuals with experience in protein structure or engineering; and where the individuals working on the team have an advanced degree and several years of experience in a relevant discipline. See id. Patent Owner states its positions on patentability of the challenged claims “would not change under that construction or Petitioner’s proposed definition ....” PO Resp. 13. Accordingly, we apply the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art set forth supra and in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the ’248 patent provides an express definition of “treat” and “treatment.” The Specification states, “[i]n the present text the term ‘treat’ or ‘treatment’ of a pathology means the prophylaxis and/or therapy and/or cure of this pathology.” Ex. 1001, 5:19– 21. This definition includes “cure” as a separate concept from therapy, and further provides that therapy includes “partial or total” alleviation of symptoms. Id. at 5:21–24. The ’248 patent does not define or otherwise describe “treating a coagulopathy” as requiring any specific duration of therapeutic efficacy; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that partial alleviation of symptoms and a shorter duration of therapeutic efficacy is encompassed in “treating a coagulopathy” as recited in claim 1. Claim 16, which depends from claim 1, supports a construction of “treating a coagulopathy” that does not require complete alleviation of symptoms or permanent therapeutic efficacy. Claim 16 recites the “modified FIX polypeptide is expressed at a level that reduces and/or prevents hemorrhages.” Ex. 1001, 46:34–36. Because claim 16 depends from claim 1, this means that “treating a coagulopathy” as recited in claim 1 encompasses merely reducing hemorrhages, i.e., partial alleviation of symptoms. Accordingly, based on the intrinsic evidence, including the express definition of the terms “treat” and “treatment,” we construe “treating a coagulopathy” as prophylaxis and/or therapy and/or cure of this coagulopathy which includes partial alleviation of symptoms, for any duration of therapeutic efficacy. We determine that we need not explicitly construe any other claim terms.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, Patent Owner has failed to show that it is entitled to a presumption of a nexus between the objective evidence and the claimed invention. Patent Owner argues that it “need not rely on such presumption [of nexus]” under the Polaris and Fox Factory analysis. PO Resp. 67. Although Patent Owner does not fully explain its position, we note that Fox Factory provides, “[a] finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; rather, “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Fox Factory, 994 F.3d at 1374 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, we find that Patent Owner presents insufficient evidence to establish a nexus by this alternative route. Patent Owner does not present argument as to the “unique characteristics” of the claimed invention, or provide evidence to support such an analysis. See PO Resp. 66–67; PO Sur-reply 26–28. In addition, as discussed above, Patent Owner’s evidence is broadly directed to FIX- R338L, which was in the prior art and does not suggest non-obviousness of the claimed invention as a whole. In summary, Patent Owner does not meet its burden to show a presumption of nexus or show a nexus to the alleged long-felt need for an effective gene therapy for hemophilia B, industry praise, and unexpectedly superior efficacy of AAV-FIX-R338L. Weighing the evidence and arguments presented, we determine that even if there is some nexus, it is weak. See Merck & Cie, 808 F.3d at 837 (Where objective indicia “result[ ] from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.”). The failure to show a nexus is fatal to Patent Owner’s contentions regarding objective indicia.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We also find Dr. Pedersen’s opinion with regard to a leucine substitution in FIX-R338 more credible than Dr. Spiegel’s, who states “there is no such thing as ‘conservative amino acid substitutions’ in the sense Dr. Pedersen asserts.” Ex. 2101 ¶ 72. The ’248 patent itself refers to “conservative amino acid substitutions” and states “[i]t is expected that substitutions between these homologous amino acids [including alanine and leucine] would not change the phenotype of the proteins.” Ex. 1001, 4:48– 61. Although Dr. Spiegel notes that substitution is context dependent and “the specification recognizes ... various properties of each unique amino acid all contribute to the amino acid’s interactions” (Ex. 2101 ¶ 75, citing Ex. 1001, 4:48–61; Ex. 1002, 4:45–58; Ex. 1039, 51), his opinions do not account for the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as to the properties of alanine and leucine and the structure of FIX. See Ex. 1101 ¶¶ 36–39. Further, Dr. Spiegel’s surface-exposure opinion (see, e.g., Ex. 2101 ¶ 99) is undercut by Stafford’s teaching that the 330–338 region of wild-type FIX contains two solvent-exposed leucines. Ex. 1101 ¶ 41 (citing Ex. 1004, 34). Dr. Spiegel’s opinion that a leucine substitution would reduce solubility or increase susceptibility to aggregation also lacks credibility because it is based on the protein hemoglobin S, and not on a modification to FIX positions 330–338. Ex. 2101 ¶ 62; Ex. 1103, 78:15–18; see Ex. 1101 ¶ 60. We also do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had serious concerns whether R338L would be expressed, based on Stafford. As discussed above, Stafford discloses successful expression of R338A in vitro, and as Dr. Wang explains, the understanding of a person of ordinary skill of similarities between R338A and R338L would have supported the understanding that R338L would express at a similar level to R338A, given Stafford’s disclosure that only R338P showed reduced expression, and unlike leucine, “proline is a known ‘helix breaker.’” Ex. 1004, 14–15; Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 113– 116. Stafford’s disclosure that mutations at 330–337 cause severe hemophilia due to loss of FIX activity (Ex. 1004, 19:16–20) does not support Patent Owner’s argument, because Patent Owner’s experts do not persuasively explain why the risk of severe hemophilia from single amino acid substitutions at positions 330–337 would be predictive of a similar risk at position 338. See Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 115–119; Ex. 1101 ¶¶ 48–51. As such, we agree with Dr. Wang that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected difficulties in expression of R338L.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 9,982,248 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,982,248 - Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00780 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–16, 18, 19, 21–23, and 25–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Hogeg.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner, however, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer with the passage from column 6 discussed by the parties. Indeed, the sentence at issue begins with the exact same term—“distribution rule”—and continues by explaining what that term “is.” See Ex. 1001, 6:13– 14 (“A distribution rule is a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Ex. 1001, code (57) (the Abstract, providing that “[a] distribution rule is used to target a group of end users . . . ”). As argued by Patent Owner, this is sufficiently clear language to express an intent by the patentee to define that term. See PO Sur-reply 6 (citing Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that “the word ‘is,’ again a term used here in the specification, may ‘signify that a patentee is serving as its own lexicographer’”); see also Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To act as a lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ and ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’” (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Further, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the definition should include the rest of the passage in column 6 (i.e., the language from “for instance” to the end of the sentence). See Pet. Reply 4. By beginning with “for instance,” the express language of that portion of the sentence makes clear that it merely provides examples of “rule[s]” that fall within the definition previously provided in the sentence, as acknowledged by Petitioner and Mr. Parulski. Cf. id. (“The language following that clipped by [Patent Owner] (‘for instance . . . ’) is what provides ‘distribution rules’ examples.”); Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 15 (“The language following that identified by [Patent Owner] (beginning with ‘for instance, a rule . . . ’) provides examples of what a ‘distribution rule’ may be.”).6 For these reasons, we construe “distribution rule” in elements 1b and 18c in the manner proposed by Patent Owner—“a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner discusses the term “digital media content processing function” in claims 1 and 18 (Pet. 21–23), but states that “the Board needn’t construe [that term] to determine patentability” (Pet. 23). We did not construe that term in the Decision on Institution (Dec. Inst. 26–27), and Patent Owner takes the position in the Response that that term still does not need construction (PO Resp. 11). We continue to agree with both parties that “digital media content processing function” need not be construed because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in research, design, or development of mobile imaging systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 19. According to Petitioner, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Parulski Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 173–174). Prior to institution, Patent Owner did not address or dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition, stating that it “appear[ed] consistent with the record at th[at] stage of the proceeding, including the prior art.” Dec. Inst. 26. In the Response, Patent Owner also does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp 10–11. We maintain the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted as of institution.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“The record supports Petitioner’s argument that the system in Hogeg “targets a group of end-users” in that it assesses which of the users are, for example, at a specific location and then sends only those users a visual editing function relevant to the users’ location. For example, in a passage cited by Petitioner as to a “conditional selection process to select/distribute a subset of functions” (Pet. 33), Hogeg discloses that “if the positional data is indicative that the visual content was captured in New York, a visual content editing function which provides an overlay of the statue of liberty and/ or a sound overlay of the song New York [N]ew York may be provided.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 58, cited at Pet. 33. This system “target[s] a group of end-users” in New York based on sensor data in that other end-users—such as ones indicated as being in California—do not receive the New York overlay. Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Hogeg’s process in that the content editing functions are sent in response to image selection by the user. See PO Resp. 16 (“Thus, what Hogeg discloses is a process for sending content editing functions ad hoc based on the characteristics of specific pieces of content that are manually identified by a user. Nothing in Hogeg, however, teaches a system or process capable of targeting a group of end-users based on a sensor data condition from their mobile devices.”). This distinction, however, is not supported by the claims. Elements 1b and 18c require a certain type of “distribution rule”— specifically one “defining a sensor data condition”—which Hogeg teaches for the reasons discussed above, but the claims do not preclude a user initiating the overall process with selection of an image. Stated differently (by Petitioner in the Reply), “whatever initiates Hogeg’s process makes no difference to Hogeg’s ‘distribution rules’” because “Hogeg’s content editing functions are still distributed according to, for example, client terminal location . . . and therefore Hogeg still uses distribution rules that target end users (e.g., users at a particular location).” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 40)).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,108,986 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,108,986
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.