• Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00278 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15–17 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner disputes the second part of Petitioner’s definition “because the ‘and/or’ encompasses within the definition . . . persons who only have experience with the clinical use or testing of medical devices.” Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill “would have had more experience than just clinically using medical devices or simply conducting tests with medical devices” Id. at 6–7. To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 33–34 (identifying evidence that clinical experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and therefore be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner’s definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, we apply Petitioner’s definition. Regardless, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer the opinions in his declarations under either definition. Moreover, Patent Owner does not identify any testimony it contends would be different under its POSITA definition. See Ex. 1083 ¶ 103 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Accordingly, all of the findings and conclusions herein would be the same under either side’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither side proposes any terms for express construction. Petitioner contends “the Board need not construe any terms because the Challenged Claims are invalid under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 20. “Patent Owner believes that no claim constructions are required to resolve the issues raised” in this IPR. Resp. 13. Nevertheless, in their arguments over whether the prior art teaches certain claim elements, each side accuses the other of misinterpreting or reading requirements beyond their ordinary meaning into those terms. See Reply 3–10 (urging that Patent Owner’s arguments read requirements into elements 1[d] and 1[e]); Sur-Reply 9–15 (arguing Petitioner applies an incorrect definition of “radio frequency output channel”). To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context they are raised in our analysis below. No further express claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Edwards-535 and Stern, and had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so for the reasons set forth in the Petition. We also find that the articulated combination of Edwards-535 and Stern teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed analysis of claim elements 1[a]-[c] and [f] and reasoning for combining the references, and credit its supporting evidence. See Pet. 7–14, 17–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–103, 113–21. Below we address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed elements 1[d] and 1[e].” slip op. at 23

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

    “We find that Petitioner has the more persuasive position and has demonstrated that Stern teaches element 1[e]. Petitioner demonstrates Stern’s multiple RF output channels with the annotated version of Figure 15 shown below. Pet. 42–43. As shown by Petitioner’s annotations above, the channel (highlighted in orange) connecting the output received from voltage source 228 to the first bipolar pair (circled in green on the left) is distinct from the channel connecting the output to the second bipolar electrode pair (circled in purple on the right) because depending on which switches are closed, energy travels through a separate connection between those switches and the corresponding electrodes. We agree with Petitioner, and credit Dr. Martin’s testimony, that each of the output channels highlighted in orange in Stern’s Figure 15 above “are output channels as required by the claims because the channels are separately/individually connected to the electrodes” and “control individual pairs of bipolar RF electrodes.” Id. at 43–44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 124–128; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 45 (“an ‘output channel’ connects electrodes and provides the ability to independently control pairs of electrodes”). This understanding of the term “output channel” is consistent with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “multiple radiofrequency output channels” wherein “each pair” of bipolar RF electrodes “is connected with a respective one of the multiple radio frequency output channels.” Ex. 1001, 52:27–33. The RF generator itself and its connection to the output channels is not recited in claim 1. Instead, the claim language focuses on the connection between the electrode pair and its respective output channel. The description in the specification also focuses on the connection to the electrodes and further explains that having a “separate, controlled electrical channel” for “each pair of electrodes” allows for “different regions of the treatment element to be activated separately.” Ex. 1001, 24:45–52, 48:63–65; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 33 (“[e]very time the patent mentions ‘electrical channel’ or ‘output channel,’ it is referring to connections to electrodes”). This aligns with the depiction of the output channels in the ’318 patent’s figures. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 39–44 (showing RF output channel 961 connected to electrodes). Petitioner demonstrates this in the annotated version of Figure 39 shown below. Reply 8.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,033,318 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,033,318
• Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00277 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–12, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over the Edwards-535, Kong, and Stern combinations, with Edwards-886 added for claim 4.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 29–31 (identifying evidence that clinical use and testing experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 5, 14–15 (explaining that clinicians who use such devices gain extensive experience regarding how they work); see also Ex. 1084, 82:13–83:20 (Dr. Bikson testifying that a physician would perform the claimed method steps). Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, we apply Petitioner’s definition. Regardless, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer the opinions in his declarations under either definition and Patent Owner does not identify any testimony it contends would be different under its POSITA definition. See Ex. 1097 ¶ 49 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Moreover, as explained below, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s challenge to Dr. DelGaudio’s qualifications and give his testimony appropriate weight in our analysis. For these reasons, our findings and conclusions would be the same under either side’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Third, nothing suggests that Dr. DelGaudio is not qualified to offer opinions regarding the knowledge and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, to his relevant clinical experience, Dr. DelGaudio has experience designing different types of medical devices and consulting with device manufacturers to provide feedback and improve devices used in nasal surgery. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 9–11. Thus, even if we had adopted a POSITA definition requiring design and development experience, Dr. DelGaudio would qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art because he has such experience in addition to his extensive clinical background. Id. Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues he is “not an individual capable of designing and developing the medical device used in the claimed method” because “Dr. DelGaudio has no experience in designing medical devices that deliver energy to tissue.” Sur-reply 22–24 (emphasis added). That argument is unavailing because such devices and methods of using them such as those recited in the claims of the ’271 patent are often developed by a team of individuals with different backgrounds and expertise. That Dr. DelGaudio working alone may not be capable of designing and developing such a device does not disqualify him from offering testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly as it relates to those claim elements that recite the use of the device as opposed to its technical details.8 Moreover, Dr. DelGaudio was careful not to overstep the bounds of his expertise, relying on testimony from Dr. Martin to confirm his understanding concerning some of the engineering details of the devices themselves. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 124, 127, 130, 151; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 12 (explaining he relied on Dr. Martin to confirm his understanding of teachings in Stern that disclose “implementation details about circuitry used to operate the bipolar electrodes, the physics of delivering energy to tissue, among other things”); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 66–131 (Dr. Martin testifying regarding a POSITA’s understanding of the prior art as it relates to such elements). Fourth, even if Dr. DelGaudio did not himself qualify as one of ordinary skill, we could still consider his testimony on those matters on which he was qualified. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 52, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents /tpgnov.pdf (“CTPG”) (“A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’”) (citing cases). We agree with Petitioner that this would include matters such as the use of the devices described in the cited references in a clinical setting. See Reply 28. 8 Indeed, by its logic, Patent Owner’s own expert would not be one of ordinary skill in the art because he is not himself capable of practicing the claimed method. See Ex. 1084, 24:13–22, 82:19–83:8 (testifying he has never used an RF device to treat a patient and would not himself perform the recited method).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. Even without taking into account the reasoning based on Baker (which we address separately below), Petitioner has demonstrated a sufficient rationale for incorporating Stern’s arrangement of two rows of bipolar electrode pairs into Edwards-535’s device. Edwards-535 teaches that a plurality of electrodes may be positioned on the surface of its treatment element, but does not specify how those electrodes are arranged or controlled. Ex. 1010, 8:25–27; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 68–69. Stern teaches a control system for selectively delivering power to bipolar electrode pairs arranged in two rows on the surface of its device that provides even heating and precise control. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 80–85. As Dr. DelGaudio explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded these attributes to be particularly beneficial when delivering treatment to the “nasal passages . . . given the uneven morphology of nasal cavity tissue and the proximity of the RF energy delivery to a patient’s brain and other critical tissues within the head.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 94. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Stern’s teachings, including the complementary two-row surface electrode arrangement shown in Figure 19, for these reasons. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–94; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 72–73, 75–88, 96–97 (explaining that Stern’s techniques would have been used to improve Edwards-535’s device in a similar way). Petitioner’s reasoning that “arranging electrodes in rows . . . facilitates simple spatial resolution of the applied energy” is also persuasive. See Pet. 47–48. As Dr. Martin explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that arranging bipolar electrodes in two or more rows was a “common way to arrange such electrodes” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 34) and a “simple way to direct energy to specific locations for treatment would have been to place pairs of electrodes in rows . . . along the device at the locations being treated.” Id. ¶ 95.” slip op. at 41

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

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. Stern’s Figure 15 shows bipolar electrodes 220 and 224 in a first horizontal row and electrodes 222 and 226 in a second horizontal row. Stern teaches that bipolar pairs can be formed between various combination of these electrodes resulting in both pairs within a row and pairs formed across two rows. See Ex. 1033, 12:61–13:2 (explaining that “bipolar operation is not limited to [electrode] 220-224 and 222-226 pair couplings” because pairs could also be formed across rows, e.g., between electrodes 220 and 222). Stern’s Figure 19 likewise depicts a plurality of electrodes arranged in two rows. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71–74 (Dr. Martin explaining that the physical arrangement in Figure 19 is complementary to the control structure in Figure 15 and that there are two rows regardless of which electrodes are paired). In bipolar operation, each of these figures depicts “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” as recited in element 1[a] because there are two rows comprising multiple pairs.15 Patent Owner’s narrower interpretation of the phrase “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” is not consistent with the intrinsic record. According to Patent Owner and Dr. Bikson, it is not enough that there are two rows of electrodes comprising multiple pairs––rather each row must itself contain multiple pairs. See Resp. 23; Ex. 2001 ¶ 75 (“A row of only two electrodes is not a row of bipolar electrode pairs because a row of only two electrodes has at most a single pair (not multiple pairs).”). As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s interpretation assumes that the “s” in “pairs” modifies each row individually, rather than the recited “rows” collectively. But the claim 15 In reply to Patent Owner’s argument that there must be at least three electrodes in a row for that row to contain multiple pairs, Petitioner shows that Stern also discloses rows with three or more electrodes. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 36– 40; Ex. 1097 ¶¶ 39–41 (identifying rows with three or more electrodes in Stern’s Figures 4a and 19). We need not address that showing in detail because, as explained below, element 1[a] does not require that there be more than one pair in each row. language does not specify that each row has pairs (plural). Rather, given its plain meaning, “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” encompasses an arrangement like that shown in Stern’s Figure 15. Ex. 1097 ¶ 30 (Dr. Martin explaining that “what is required is (1) more than one bipolar electrode pair that are (2) spread across rows”). This broader understanding is confirmed by the specification of the” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 11,241,271 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,241,271
• Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00287 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–12, 14–16, and 22–24 are unpatentable under § 103 over Riepling and Meisels, or Riepling, Manzano, and Meisels; claim 13 was disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. We apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 20

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

    “construction of “representation of the at least one file.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a file is not the file itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ʼ906 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6B reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6B depicts representations of two files: “FamilyHistory.docx” and “XmasLetter-2012.pdf.” The ’906 application specifically states: [A] located data resources dialog UI element 630b . . . includes a presentation space 632b for presenting a user detectable representation of some or all of the data objects identified in the received data object identification response from . . . second node 504. Ex. 2004 ¶ 147 (emphasis added). The entries in the above figure are representations of the files, not the files themselves. The actual files are stored in the file system storage associated with the user’s node, and only retrieved if the user selects the “Access” or “Access All” elements. Id. ¶ 148. Patent Owner misconstrues the claim 22 language, “a first representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the at least one server” and “a second representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the first node.” Patent Owner infers from this language that the representation is itself a file that is “in a location among one or more folders” and is stored on a server or at a node. PO Resp. 17. Not so — the representation of a file, such as “FamilyHistory.docx” in the above figure, is not stored at a server or node, but rather is simply displayed on a screen. As the ’906 application states: A representation of a program entity may be stored and/or otherwise maintained in a presentation space. As used in this document, the term “presentation space” refers to a storage region allocated and/or otherwise provided for storing presentation information . . . . A screen of a display, for example, is a presentation space.” slip op. at 22

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

    “because (i) Riepling and Meisels are from the same field of endeavor, directed to sharing files over a network; (ii) the combination would have yielded expected, predictable results, using known and routine computer programming principles, to modify Riepling’s system to generate an electronic message that includes a link pointing to an uploaded file; (iii) the combination would have been readily implemented given Meisels’ teachings of inserting, in an electronic message, a link to a shared location where a file is uploaded; and (iv) the combination was suggested because Meisels expressly disclosed a benefit of sending an email message with a link, to avoid multiple copies of a file from existing at multiple locations, and sending links to one file to multiple recipients and managing permissions on an individual recipient basis. Pet. 67–70 (citing Ex. 1107, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 2, 4, 19; Ex. 1108, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 1, 3, 41–45, 56; Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 194–198). In addition, for reasons similar to the motivation basis, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Id. at 70–71 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 199–200). Other than its arguments directed to ’520 claim requirement 9[l], discussed below in Section III.D.4.d), Patent Owner does not further address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the combination of Riepling and Meisels. As discussed in that section, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have applied the document link teachings of Meisels to modify Riepling. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Riepling and Meisels in the manner argued by Petitioner.” slip op. at 32

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that set content field 325 of Riepling teaches or suggests claim requirement 9[b]. As Petitioner’s expert explains, the fact that field 325 has an appearance identical to that of fields 321–324 in Figure 3, which fields are specifically stated to be “text field[s],” strongly suggests that field 325 is also a text field. Mowry Decl. ¶ 70; see also Reply 10–11. Patent Owner’s suggestion that field 325 could be a dropdown list or other type of field is contradicted by the fact that it does not show the typical dropdown arrow associated with a dropdown box, or other typical non-textbox appearance such as the checkbox appearance of field 320. Moreover, in the example of Figure 3, the “Set Content” entry is “audio,” which is a file description. Reply 10. The fact that “JPEG” is checked in field 320 is not inconsistent with the “audio” entry in field 325, given that, as Riepling explains, “it may be possible for audio files such as MP3 files to contain non-MP3 data, such as JPEG data embedded within the MP3 files.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1107 ¶ 32; Mowry 2nd Decl. ¶ ¶ 101–104). Also, there is no reason why the Figure 5 response that gives the uploader the ability to provide additional description of the file being uploaded is inconsistent with the ability of the requester first describing what type of file is being requested via field 325 in Figure 3. Id. at 11–12. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirement 9[b].” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,611,520
• Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17–21 are unpatentable under § 103 over Houston and Garcia; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We conclude that there is no basis for Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “representation of the at least one folder.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a folder is not the folder itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ’635 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6D reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6D depicts representations of several folders, including the highlighted “Music” folder. The ’635 application specifically states: A folder content pane UI element 648d in navigation window UI element 646d is presented including representations of one or more data objects[11] at a location, identified in a path UI element 650d. A pointer UI element 652d illustrates a drag and drop operation of a “Music” folder represented in contents pane UI element 648d, dropped on edit window UI element 602d. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123 (emphasis added). The word “Music” in the above figure is a representation of a folder, not the folder itself. The actual folder is an entity in a file system that stores files (in the case of a “Music” folder, presumably MP3 or WAV files, or the like).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not need to rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — 14 For this argument and others, Patent Owner cites for additional support portions of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/233,787. PO Resp. 18, 42, 46; Sur-Reply 9–12. This application is designated in Houston as a related application, and incorporated by reference therein. Ex. 1003, code (60), 1:6–10. We denied as untimely Patent Owner’s request to belatedly add this application to the record. Ex. 3002; Paper 39. Even accepting Patent Owner’s representations of the relied-on disclosures in that application, those disclosures are cumulative to Houston’s criticisms of systems that store documents remotely, and are irrelevant for the same reasons as discussed herein with respect to those Houston disclosures. that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Id. at 40–41; Ex. 2045.15 Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21, in light of our conclusion set forth above in Section III.C rejecting Patent Owner’s proposed construction of claim 17. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user’s local system and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, there is nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia that would support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary” slip op. at 41

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

    “To give substantial weight to objective indicia of nonobviousness such as commercial success, a proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). A patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “[T]he patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378. The Federal Circuit has held that “if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “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 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 125, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “Ultimately, the fact finder must weigh the [objective indicia] evidence presented in the context of whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential) (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 23

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

    “However, as Petitioner argues above, Houston discloses that a client can provide an email to the server to invite others to share a folder, and Houston explains that “attaching files [to emails is] cumbersome for many computer users.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 4, 1:41–42, 3:40–43, 7:50–51). From this, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious for the email invitation to notify how to access the folder, rather than sending the folder contents itself. Id. Petitioner further argues that the claim 17[d] requirement would have been obvious over the combination of Houston and Garcia given the disclosure in Garcia of sharing a folder by sending an email with a link to the folder, instead of an attachment. Id. at 27, 57 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 11–12, 10:32–34, 10:38–40, 11:39–43, cl. 3). We are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding this claim requirement. Both Houston alone, and the combination of Houston and Garcia, teach or suggest sending an email with a link to a folder to be shared, rather than the folder contents. Only if the recipient clicks on the link are the contents of the folder shared. Ex. 1004, 11:29–31. The act of clicking on the link in the email after the email is received is the required “initiation of the communication” that must occur separately from the email itself, as required by claim 17[d]: “causing generation of at least one email [that] does not include a file attachment, for permitting avoidance of at least one file from being communicated to and stored at the second node until an initiation of the communication of the at least one file by a user of the second node is detected and the communication commences via at least one server that stores the at least one file” (emphasis added). It does not matter if Houston or Garcia automatically downloads local copies of files when a recipient clicks on the email link, because that is a separate step following the step of claim 17[d].” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,611,520
• Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting / Elong International USA Inc. et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00260 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1 and 11–14 on all asserted grounds and consolidated the proceeding with IPR2024-01357.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In our Institution Decision in IPR2024-01357, we analyzed claim 1 of the ’678 patent in light of Basin-2007 and Basin-2005. ’1357 IPR, Paper 17, 23–28. We concluded, after reviewing the arguments presented there, that “Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that the combined teachings of Basin-2005 and Basin-2007 render claim 1 unpatentable as obvious.” Id. at 28. In this proceeding, Petitioner has presented a challenge to claim 1 based on those same references that it represents is a “verbatim” copy of its previous challenge to claim 1 in the ’1357 IPR. Pet. 1–2, 28–35. Petitioner supports its challenge with expert testimony. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 107–125.7 Patent Owner has not submitted a response on the merits of this challenge. For the purposes of this Decision, and for the reasons given in the Petition, we adopt the analysis in our Institution Decision in the ’1357 IPR (at pp. 23–28), where we determined that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claim 1 based on Basin-2005 and Basin-2007. Turning now to Petitioner’s challenge to claim 11, Petitioner relies on Basin-2007 and Stokes for the particle size limitations added to claim 1 by that dependent claim. Pet. 35–39. Thus, Petitioner asserts that “Basin-2007 discloses a light scattering material with an average TiO2 particle size that is ‘sub-micron’ (less than 1000 nm).” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 5). 7 Exhibit 1002 appears to be a duplicate copy of Dr. Doolittle’s declaration from the ’1357 IPR. Petitioner concludes, “Basin-2007 renders obvious claim 11 by literally disclosing the selection of average particle sizes that preferentially scatter blue light.” Id. Further, “to the extent that the claim language ‘an average particle size that is selected such that [it preferentially scatters blue light]’ requires an average particle size selected for that reason (rather than an average particle size that leads to that outcome), this claim element is rendered obvious by Stokes.” Id. at 38 (citing Doolittle Decl. ¶ 45) (alterations in original). Petitioner explains that “Stokes explicitly discloses the selection of an average particle size ‘such that the particles preferentially scatter blue . . . LED light as compared to yellow . . . light from the luminescent material.’” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1008, 7:1–4) (alterations in original). Petitioner provides a motivation for combining Stokes with Basin- 2007 with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 38–39. Petitioner explains that “[t]o the extent that claim 11 is understood to also claim the basis for selecting a particular average particle size, a [person of ordinary skill] would have had reason to use such a basis for selecting average particle size as taught by Stokes.” Id. at 38 (citing Doolittle Decl. ¶¶ 46–48). Further, “a [person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated to apply this principle to Basin-2007, because it would increase the conversion of blue light to yellow light and improve the uniformity of the light source.” Id. at 39 (citing Doolittle Decl. ¶ 48). At this stage, Patent Owner does not provide an opposition to Petitioner’s evidence or arguments on the merits. For the reasons given by Petitioner, including those summarized above, we determine that Petitioner” slip op. at 6

  • Director reviewOther

    “On June 12, 2025, the Acting Director issued a decision denying the request and referring the Petition to the Board “to handle the case in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other nondiscretionary considerations, as appropriate.” Paper 16, 3. The Acting Director further instructed the Board, “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, the Board shall consolidate this proceeding with IPR2024-01357.” Id.” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “As noted supra, the Acting Director of the USPTO has instructed the Board, “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, the Board shall consolidate this proceeding with IPR2024-01357.” Paper 16, 3. Due to the similarity of the parties, counsel, subject matter, and asserted prior art between IPR2024- 01357 and this proceeding, and in view of the Acting Director’s guidance, we exercise our discretion to consolidate this proceeding with IPR2024- 01357. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a).” slip op. at 8

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,604,678
• Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00144 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–20 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION The Petition fails to show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Accordingly, we deny the Petition. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 23

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

    “claim 15). We agree that the Specification supports Patent Owner’s construction. Although Petitioner bases its construction on extrinsic evidence, Petitioner argues that its construction “is consistent with” the intrinsic evidence, which, according to Petitioner, “indicates a sole is optional.” Pet. 31. A sole is optional, Petitioner argues, because the Abstract of the ’511 patent states that “[t]he footwear may include an upper and a sole structure.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1001, Abstr. (Petitioner’s emphasis)). We are not persuaded. Petitioner reads too much into the sentence it quotes from the Abstract and its use of the word “may.” Indeed, by Petitioner’s logic, both the upper and the sole structure would be optional and footwear would lack any required structure. Petitioner also argues that “[o]ther intrinsic evidence” supports its construction. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1053, 4:55–58; Ex. 1002 ¶92). The alleged intrinsic evidence, however, is an unrelated patent, US 2,675,631, which purportedly was cited during the prosecution of the ’511 patent. Id. This argument is undeveloped by Petitioner. First, Petitioner fails to substantiate that US 2,675,631 is cited in the prosecution history, merely asserting it as fact without pointing to supporting evidence. See id. (no citation to the prosecution history provided). Further, even assuming US 2,675,631 is cited in the prosecution history of the ’511 patent and thus part of the intrinsic evidence,8 Petitioner fails to show that it is probative of 8 The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he prosecution history, which we have designated as part of the ‘intrinsic evidence,’ consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (emphasis added). what the inventors of the ’511 patent meant by “article of footwear.” Petitioner points out that the inventor of US 2,675,631 considers “knitted footwear” as encompassing “hose, golf hose, three-quarter hose, half-hose and socks” but does not explain why such meaning should be incorporated into the ’511 patent. Ex. 1053, 4:55–58 (partly quoted at Pet. 31–32). US 2,675,631 is titled “Footwear Article of The Slipper-Sock Type.” Ex. 1053, Title. As is evidently clear from the specifications of both patents, the ’511 patent and US 2,675,631 are directed to different types of footwear within the broader (dictionary) definition cited by Petitioner. Ex. 1022, 67, 88. Patent Owner also proffers testimony from Dr. Pastore that a person” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We construe the preambles of claims 1 and 15 to be limiting, as guided by case law. It is clear that the preambles are being used to help define the invention, i.e., an upper for an article of footwear in the case of claim 1 and an article of footwear having an upper in the case of claim 15. See Bell Communications Research Inc. v. Vitalink Commcations Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it. In other words, when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some other, is the 9 Claim 15 is similar to claim 1, and, in challenging claim 1, Petitioner merely refers back to and relies exclusively on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 84 (Ground 1), 124–125 (Ground 2). Thus, although we may we discuss claim 1 alone at times, our analysis applies equally to claim 15. one the patent protects.”). Moreover, the bodies of both claims recite “the upper” which, in the case of claim 1, derives its antecedent basis directly from the preamble and, in the case of claim 15, relies on the preamble’s article of footwear which is recited as comprising an upper. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “However, it is not enough that Clark discloses a sole. See KSR Int'l, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). Petitioner must show that it would have been obvious to modify Cusinato to include a sole. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). On this aspect, Petitioner fails. The Petition summarily states that “a POSITA would consider it obvious to add a sole to Cusinato’s ‘boot-like’ form” but – as noted by Patent Owner – the Petition does not explain why. Pet. 51; see Prelim. Resp. 35 (“The Petition is silent with respect to any alleged motivation.”). Dr. Adanur’s testimony does not add much. He summarily opines that “it would be obvious to add a sole to Cusinato’s ‘boot-like’ form to provide cushioning and protection.” Ex. 1002 ¶160.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,918,511
• Microsoft Corporation v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00297 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–18 on all petition grounds and granted Microsoft’s motion to join IPR2024-00856.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. DECISION ON INSTITUTION Petitioner represents that the challenges to the claims of the’109 patent in the Petition are “intentionally identical . . . in all substantive aspects” to the challenges in the ’856 IPR. See Joinder Motion 2; compare ’856 IPR, Paper 1, 2–4, with Pet. 2–3. Petitioner further represents that this proceeding and the ’856 IPR “rely upon the same analytical framework (e.g., same expert declarant and prior art) in addressing the Challenged Claims.” Joinder Motion 2. Additionally, Patent Owner does not present an opposition to the Petition on the merits and does not oppose joinder. See, e.g., Notice, 1. In view of the foregoing, for the reasons given above and in the ’856 Institution Decision, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to at least one claim of the ’109 patent. We therefore institute inter partes review of all challenges in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Joinder is a matter within the Board’s discretion based on the particular circumstances of each proceeding. For the reasons given above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that permitting Petitioner to join the ’856 IPR would avoid duplication and promote the efficient resolution of both proceedings and is therefore in the interests of justice.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenInstituted

    “III. DECISION ON INSTITUTION Petitioner represents that the challenges to the claims of the’109 patent in the Petition are “intentionally identical . . . in all substantive aspects” to the challenges in the ’856 IPR. See Joinder Motion 2; compare ’856 IPR, Paper 1, 2–4, with Pet. 2–3. Petitioner further represents that this proceeding and the ’856 IPR “rely upon the same analytical framework (e.g., same expert declarant and prior art) in addressing the Challenged Claims.” Joinder Motion 2. Additionally, Patent Owner does not present an opposition to the Petition on the merits and does not oppose joinder. See, e.g., Notice, 1. In view of the foregoing, for the reasons given above and in the ’856 Institution Decision, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to at least one claim of the ’109 patent. We therefore institute inter partes review of all challenges in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,109
• Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00141 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under §325(d), finding the petition relied on previously presented art and did not show material error by the Office.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) 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; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 11

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

    “single §102 rejection based solely on Nishida.” Pet. § 325(d) Reply 3 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Petitioner argues that: The examiner seemingly failed to consider how it would have been obvious to combine Nishida (or any other reference of record, such as Orei) with knowledge in the art, including the fact that it was “well known to use double needle-bar raschel machines . . . to knit textile elements simultaneously with surrounding textile structures” (Pet., 37–38), and that simultaneous knitting would be obvious because it would “increase yield and reduce manufacturing steps,” as explained in the Petition and supporting evidence. See Pet., 42–44. Id. (alterations in original); see also id. at 4 (Petitioner arguing that the Examiner clearly erred for “failing to seemingly even consider if it would 10 We quote here, to give context to “otherwise,” both aspects that a petitioner must demonstrate in order to meet its burden. In order to determine whether Petitioner has met its overall burden, we need not and do not reach the issue of whether “the previously presented art [Nishida] teaches the limitations of the challenged claims.” Ecto World, Paper 13 at 6. have been obvious to combine Nishida with other prior art, or to implement Nishida using well-known techniques for simultaneously knitting textile elements and surrounding structures having differing textures.”). We do not find this argument persuasive. The cited portion of the Petition is the contention that Orei—not Nishida—would render obvious claim 1. See Pet. 37–38, 42–44 (Ground 1A). Thus, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Examiner erred in not making an obviousness rejection based on Nishida because the disputed limitation was purportedly well-known. Additionally, Petitioner’s support for the assertion that this limitation is well-known is not persuasive. The Petition parenthetically quotes from a source stating that plural “articles . . . can be simultaneously knitted side-by-side,” not that an article (a textile element) and surrounding textile structure are known to be simultaneously knitted. See Pet. 38 (quoting Ex. 1050, 201) (emphasis added); see also Pet. § 325(d) Reply 3 (Petitioner quoting its own argument and characterizing it as a “fact” (“The examiner seemingly failed to consider . . . the fact that it was ‘well known . . . “)).” slip op. at 21

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00020 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 11–15 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of the instant Decision, “Nike applies New Balance’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based on the record presented, we determine that Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the scope and content of the ’932 patent and the asserted prior art, and, at this stage, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner acknowledges that it agreed to the constructions identified by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent Owner also notes that it agreed to these proposed constructions in the Related Litigation. Id. at 13. However, Patent Owner argues that for purposes of this Preliminary Response, “no terms require construction.” Id. (citing Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “limitation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Becker’s stiffer outer lining would have “restrict[ed] the mobility of the ankle, “not allow[ed] for tightening,” and known to “hav[e] the inner lining extend up above the outer lining.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122–123). Petitioner relies on conclusory reasoning grounded in hindsight to assert that it would have been obvious for “the skin layer [to be] absent from the ankle part of the knitted component,” as required by limitation [11.d]. The difficulty with Petitioner’s position is that neither Becker nor the other cited references disclose, teach, suggest, or otherwise provide motivation for “the skin layer being absent from the ankle part of the knitted component,” as claimed.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,898,932
• Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00151 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–27 unpatentable on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’636 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

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

    “25:5 (limitation 1a1: “a portion of the knitted component defining the upper”). “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (alteration in original). Thus, the claim language suggests that the “integral knit tongue” is a component distinct, at least to some degree, from the “upper.” See also Ex. 1001, 2:27–28 (the Specification stating that “[a] knitted component including the upper and an integral knit tongue is incorporated into the article of footwear.”). Limitation 1d reinforces this understanding by requiring the tongue to be joined to a portion of the throat area of the upper. See id. at 6:35–38 (the Specification indicating that the “throat area” is an area of the upper); cf. Ex. 2014, 18–19 (defining “Throat”: “The main opening of a shoe extending from the vamp [(the front part of a shoe upper that covers the toes and part of the foot)] to the ankle.”). In addition to suggesting that the tongue is a component distinct from the upper, the claim language indicates that the integral knit tongue extends through a throat area. See Ex. 1001, 25:10–11 (limitation 1b: “an integral knit tongue . . . extending through a throat area of the knitted component”). With that context, we turn to the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable

    “claim language does not specify it, both parties contend that the “portion of the knitted component” constitutes the majority of the upper. See Pet. 25– 26, 30 (Petitioner applying in this ground that which it characterizes as Patent Owner’s claim construction position); Prelim. Resp. 43 (Patent Owner noting that the Specification states that “a majority of upper 120 is formed from a knitted component 130,” and contending that limitation 1a1 means that “a majority of the upper must be knitted.” (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:57–59)). Nevertheless, we determine for the following reasons that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that central textile element 60 of Dua-956 defines an upper within the meaning of the claims. See Pet. 26. Petitioner contends that, “[w]ith respect to what defines the upper, the ’636 patent discloses that the ‘upper generally extends over the instep and toe areas of the foot, along the medial and lateral sides of the foot, under the foot, and around the heel area of the foot.’” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:44–46, 6:66–67). Petitioner reasons that, “[a]s such, the ’636 patent describes the upper as extending around six parts of the foot: (1) the instep area, (2) the toe area, (3) the medial side, (4) the lateral side, (5) under the foot, and (6) the heel area.” Id. Applying this reasoning to the reference, Petitioner contends that, “[o]f the six upper parts identified in the ’636 patent, only two of them—the medial and lateral sides—are not formed by the central textile element 60,” and therefor “the majority of the parts of the upper are formed by the central element 60.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109). Petitioner provides an annotated versions of Figures 8B and 8C of Dua-956, reproduced below, to depict its contentions. Id. at 30. Above are Figures 8B and 8C of Dua-956—which are, respectively, perspective views depicting a second step and a third step in assembling the article of footwear (Ex. 1029, 3:41–45)—with central textile element 60 shaded green. As Petitioner concedes (Pet. 30) and as the annotated figures above show, central textile element 60 does not form the medial and lateral sides of the footwear. Thus, even if central textile element 60 constitutes the majority of parts of the upper, the sides of the upper remain undefined by the central textile element. Petitioner does not explain adequately how the upper is defined when the side components are missing. We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated adequately for institution that Dua-956 discloses “a portion of the knitted component defining the upper,” as recited in independent claim 1.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Petitioner contends that “both upper 70 and 30' are constructed as a single, unitary knit element that defines the upper, and it would have been obvious to construct upper 30 in the same manner.” Pet. 65. Petitioner next turns to Horii, asserting that “Horii discloses “shoes 1 that are characterized by the fact that the entire upper is constructed of a single piece of upper member 2 that is made through weft knitting or circular knitting.’” Id. at 67 (citing Ex. 1017, 9) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner reasons that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to manufacture Dua-956’s upper 30, for example, using the multilayer, single fabric of Horii because Horii’s single-piece knit upper would have provided upper 30 with a seamless structure.” Id. at 68. We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that “[c]onstructing Dua-956’s upper 30 as a single, unitary knit component would not materially change the analysis under Ground 1A.” Pet. 70. In Ground 1A, Petitioner contends that “‘forward portion 61’ of the central textile element 60 is an integral knit tongue that extends through a throat area of the knitted component in the assembled upper 30.” Id. at 34. During the assembly of footwear 10, forward portion 61 is flipped over the top of the footwear and the separate textile elements 40 and 50 (the sides of the footwear) are stitched to the lateral and medial edges (64a and 64b) of forward portion 61—the purported tongue. See Ex. 1029, 9:5–11, Figs. 8B, 8C. Petitioner does not explain adequately how, when modifying the embodiment used in Ground 1A to have a seamless top portion, the purported integral knit tongue is retained in that combination. See Pet. 70 (Petitioner asserting that the proposed combination would still have an exterior surface, an inner surface, lace elements 33, channels 44/54, and loops 35, “along with the other structures identified under Ground 1A,” but not specifically discussing the purported integral knit tongue.). We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that claims 1–6, 8–17, and 19–27 would have been obvious over Dua-596 alone or in combination with Horii.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,510,636

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.