- Microchip Technology Inc. v. Aptiv Technologies AGSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 18, 2025 · IPR2024-00495 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Chang and Chang II; claims 18–20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, in the context of Chang, a POSITA would have been motivated to implement dual-role ports by including a switch (e.g., multiplexer or crossbar) that connects the dual-role port(s) directly to the hub’s upstream port (when the consumer product is configured as a device, i.e., path 48) or to the hub through the bridge (when the consumer product is configured as host, i.e., path 54. Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 182–187). Petitioner’s argument that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Chang to include switching functionality as taught by Chang II and supported by other substantial evidence appears well-reasoned and well-supported. Petitioner argues that “[a] POSITA would have been further motivated to improve Chang in view of Chang II, because Chang II expressly states its relevance to USB hubs.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 181; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 27, 40). And, Petitioner argues that “while Chang discloses little regarding its bridge (EX1014, [0020]), Chang II details various aspects of its bridge (EX1015, Title, Figs. 1-2 and 5).” Id. In support of this argument, the Petition provides: Importantly, Chang II further details exemplary switching for either a host- or device-product: “the main feature is the provision of two different transmission paths, so that by automatically detecting the type of device connected (host or slave) the present invention can switch to the proper transmission path.” EX1015, [0021]. In other words, Chang II describes “switch[ing]” to connect a “bridge” transmission path (when the product is host) or “bypass” path (when the product is device). Id., Figs. 1, 5, [0013]. And Chang II further discloses “detection unit 134” for detecting whether the consumer product is host or device. Id., [0038]. Id. (bracketed material in original, footnote omitted). Petitioner contends that “[a]ccordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated, with a high expectation of success, to route the dual-role ports (and products attached thereto) to the appropriate path using a switch.” Id. at 41–42. We determine that this contention is well-reasoned and well-supported. Patent Owner challenges on several grounds the showing regarding” slip op. at 51
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Id. As discussed above, we determine that any alleged commercial success secondary consideration evidence has not been established to have a nexus to the claimed invention. Accordingly, we consider the evidence of commercial success but accord it little weight in our overall obviousness determination.” slip op. at 60
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot shown unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“Id. As discussed above, we determine that any alleged commercial success secondary consideration evidence has not been established to have a nexus to the claimed invention. Accordingly, we consider the evidence of commercial success but accord it little weight in our overall obviousness determination.” slip op. at 60
- Strike new argumentDenied
“because the Reply improperly presents new theories of unpatentability with belated supporting evidence that could have been present in the Petition itself.” Paper 37, 1. Patent Owner contends that, in response to an argument Patent Owner made in the Response that “Petitioner’s proposed prior art combination features a structural flaw” (id. at 2), Petitioner’s Reply improperly presents a new argument not found in the Petition (id. at 3–6). As discussed supra (section II.E.3.a.), we determine that, because Patent Owner’s structural flaw argument fails, we do not reach the alleged new argument and evidence that Patent Owner seeks to strike. Accordingly, this motion is moot.” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 9,619,420 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,619,420 - Microchip Technology Inc. v. Aptiv Technologies AGAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00230 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Chang and Chang II; the Board did not reach the Chang, Chang II, and Chutorash ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner and find that “computer network protocols” is correct in light of the ’072 patent’s disclosure and claim 1. In particular, the ’072 patent teaches that it “generally relates to [USB] connectivity between, for example, mobile consumer devices and vehicle electronic systems.” Ex. 1009, 1:21–23. And the ’072 patent’s teachings focus on common network components (e.g., hub, bridge, ports) and common networking concepts (e.g., master/slave network architecture and bridging) which are used in the USB context, rather than detailed aspects (e.g., signal timing, signal levels, power levels) of the USB protocol. See generally Ex. 1009; see also Ex. 1084, 103:21–104:2, 104:24–105:4; Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1084,7 100:17–101:12 (acknowledging that Dr. Houh testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would know basic USB concepts like bridging, master/slave architecture, etc.”), 102:3–8, 103:21– 104:2, 104:24–105:4). Likewise, claim 1 repeatedly recites “USB,” but does so to identify that all of the components of the data system (i.e., USB ports, USB hub, USB bridge, USB host, USB multiplexing switches) employ the USB protocol. Ex. 1009, 9:15–10:18. As the ’072 patent teaches, “USB 7 Houh Deposition Tr. (2024/12/18, Day 1). technology . . . [wa]s commonly available, familiar to the end user, cost effective and ubiquitous.” Id. at 1:35–37. Thus, although the ’072 patent is taught in the USB context, “computer network protocols” concepts are the focus. For these same reasons, we find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been well-versed in USB standards (including the USB 2.0 and 3.0 Specifications and the OTG Supplement) and the design/deployment of USB hosts, USB devices, and USB hubs, including suitable environments for USB systems.” Pet. 26.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Lastly, we give little weight to Mr. Welch’s testimony regarding the level of one of ordinary skill as he does not indicate what precisely constitutes the basis of his testimony on this issue. See Ex. 1013 ¶ 47.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Here, Petitioner argues that “embedded USB host” means “USB host physically embedded in a vehicle.” See Pet. 27–28. “Patent Owner does not contend that any claim construction is required.” PO Resp. 5. We agree with Patent Owner that we do not need to construe any term to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). And we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product that ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). In other words, “[a] presumption of nexus requires both that the product embodies the invention and is coextensive with it.” Id. at 1211 (citing Brown, 229 F.3d at 1130). Patent Owner fails to show either of these requirements. First, Patent Owner argues that in his Supplemental Declaration, Dr. Houh “provides on a per limitation basis how [Patent Owner]’s dual role hub meets all limitations of claim 1.” PO Resp. 73 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 136). Notably, Patent Owner cites to a single paragraph in this declaration, without providing any specific arguments in its Response that its product practices claim 1. Id. Rather, Patent Owner incorporates its arguments by reference, which is not permitted. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). Thus, we do not consider these arguments, and we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s product practices claim 1. Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019,8 35–36 (citing Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative)) (“[P]arties that incorporate expert testimony by reference in their petitions . . . without providing explanation of such testimony risk having the testimony not considered by the Board.”).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,176,072 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,176,072 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00477 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Komata; the Board did not reach the Tsuji or Rosenberg grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or an equivalent degree), and two years of practical or industry experience in the field of human computer interaction (HCI), including implementation of computer-based systems and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user. . . . Also, a person could have qualified as a [POSITA] with more formal education and less practical or industry experience, or vice versa. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 17). Although these level of skill definitions are not the same, the differences are minor, and Patent Owner does not argue that its level of skill definition is dispositive. To the contrary, Patent Owner asserts that “[i]n any event, the challenged claims of the ’260 Patent are patentable under either . . . definition.” Id. at 18. We apply Petitioner’s level of skill but would have reached the same result had we applied Patent Owner’s.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As we explained in our Institution Decision, we disagreed then, and still disagree, “that the second pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected (or that the third pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected) simply because the second pressure is greater than the first pressure (and the third pressure is greater than the second pressure).” Dec. 27. As we explained there, “[t]he claimed relative magnitudes of the first, second, and third pressures do not define any temporal relationships regarding the detection of the pressures.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that claim 1 recites quantitative relationships for the pressures, not temporal relationships. Reply 4. For example, claim 1 requires “the second pressure greater than the first pressure” but says nothing about when the second pressure must be greater than the first pressure. A key misconception undergirding Patent Owner’s argument is its statement that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” PO Resp. 27 (emphasis added). The claim does not require detecting that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure. Limitation [1c] simply says, “detect a second pressure on the first input device, the second pressure greater than the first pressure.” In other words, all the detection that this limitation requires is detecting a second pressure. The claim then observes that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure but does not require detecting this. Limitation [1e] similarly detects pressure but not the comparison: “detect a third pressure on the first input device, the third pressure greater than the second pressure.” Thus, it does not follow that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” See id. Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner’s analysis of the claim language is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Our decision here does not depend on the meaning of this term. Patent Owner only argues the phrase “tactile sensation” for Petitioner’s challenge over Rosenberg, which we do not reach because Petitioner’s challenge over Komata is dispositive. See PO Resp. 63–66. Accordingly, we do not construe this term.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Instead, Patent Owner disputes that Komata discloses the order of all the steps of claim 1, based on its construction requiring the steps to be performed in order. PO Resp. 50–54; Reply 17 (observing that Patent Owner “does not dispute that Ground 1 demonstrates how Komata anticipates or renders obvious claims 1–7 if [Patent Owner’s] ordered-steps argument is rejected”); Sur-reply 12–14 (not disputing the Reply’s observation). As Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction we have not adopted, Patent Owner fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive showing.7 To the extent, as we note above, that the claims may require a partial ordering (i.e., limitation [1a] preceding limitation [1b] and limitation [1c] preceding limitation [1d], see supra Section I.A.1.a), Petitioner has persuasively shown that Komata discloses such ordering. a. Summary as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata. 3. Dependent Claims 2–7 Petitioner also contends that claims 2–7 would have been obvious over Komata. Pet. 28–35. Patent Owner does not dispute these dependent claims. Petitioner provides detailed explanations indicating where Komata teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 2–7, supported by Mr. Ward’s testimony. Id. We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–7 are anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,336,260 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,336,260 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00478 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable because Petitioner proved that Rosenberg I anticipates them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“feedback that simulates a mechanical detent.” PO Resp. 28; Sur-reply 3. Petitioner “does not explicitly disagree” that a virtual detent is “vibrotactile feedback that simulates a mechanical detent.” Reply 2. Petitioner asserts that “[i]f there is a dispute, it is whether Rosenberg I’s vibrotactile feedback ‘simulates a mechanical detent’ because [Patent Owner] says such simulation requires a sense of mechanical resistance and Rosenberg I allegedly lacks such simulated resistance.” Id. (citing PO Resp. 58–59).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“To the extent Patent Owner urges us to require virtual detents to vary on a system or application basis, we do not find this interpretation required by the claims or specification either. Although the claims refer to “a plurality of systems,” they do not recite different detent profiles for each of those systems. Claim 1, for example, recites “receiving a detent profile associated with one of the systems.” The other claims are similar. Patent Owner’s reliance on non-limiting specification language is also unavailing. E.g., Ex. 1001, 8:38–46 (“can” and “may”), 4:30–44 (“embodiment” and “may”).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“supports its proposed construction. See PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that claim 15 recites a “system comprising” “an input device configured to control one of a plurality of systems,” and hence “the recited plurality of systems are subsystems in addition to the containing system.” Id. We question how this point supports Patent Owner’s proposal because this does not address why each system must “provide[] context for virtual detents.” But regardless, we find it unpersuasive because claim 15’s preamble is not limiting (merely reciting “A system comprising”). See Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[P]reamble language that merely states the purpose or intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim.”); see also Tr. 80:4– 8 (Patent Owner conceding that the preamble is non-limiting). Nor is there any explicit language in claim 15 that would exclude any particular system, such as the system recited in the preamble, from the recited “plurality of systems.”” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 9,430,042 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,430,042 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00115 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28–30, 32, 33, and 35 on all asserted grounds, based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“4. Determination as to a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence of record, we conclude, for the reasons provided above, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, and Wampler.” slip op. at 41
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“With respect to Patent Owner’s assertions about word count limits, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“Consolidated TPG”) states that “deleting spacing between words, or using excessive acronyms or abbreviations for word phrases, in order to circumvent the rules on word count, may lead to a party’s brief not being considered.” Consolidated TPG, 40 (citing Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 600 F. App’x 774 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As the basis for denying the Petition, Patent Owner alleges “undue prejudice.” Prelim. Resp. 76. Patent Owner, however, did not raise with the Board, prior to filing its Preliminary Response, any concern with the manner in which Petitioner formatted its Petition. As a result, Patent Owner did not avail itself of the opportunity to seek relief to address any alleged undue prejudice short of denying the Petition through, for example, an increase in the word count for its own brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(2). Under the circumstances alleged improper formatting.8” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 1–2. We find, for purposes of the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of skill reflected in these references and in the ’517 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).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In sum, Petitioner maintains a narrower construction of “magneto coupling” is correct, and alleges grounds of unpatentability based on both its narrower proposed construction (a construction encompassed by the broader construction), as well as based on the broader construction that Patent Owner does not dispute. We, therefore, find no merit to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s contention “contradicts itself” or fails to present a “prima facie obviousness position.” See Prelim. Resp. 3. Patent Owner does not dispute the broader construction applied by Petitioner, which encompasses the narrower construction Petitioner proposes. For purposes of this Decision, we apply the broader construction of “magneto coupling,” which encompasses generating a rotating field either by rotating magnets or by an electromagnet / stator.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,674,517 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00116 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Abbott would prove at least one claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2024). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’077 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage, “Patent Owner takes no position regarding the appropriate level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 1. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 6. We view this definition for the level of ordinary skill as consistent with the ’077 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“axially adjacent.” In particular, Petitioner argues in connection with mapping cited art to challenged claims for the Wampler and Akamatsu asserted grounds that “a magnetic element sealed within a rotor is . . . ‘axially adjacent.’” Pet. 20 n.6. Petitioner fails to point to any intrinsic evidence to support this construction. Rather, Petitioner alleges that Patent Owner took this position in the parallel litigation in a chart mapping claim 1 to accused products. Id. (citing Ex. 1019,6 5–7). Petitioner does not explain how Patent Owner’s chart supports Petitioner’s construction here. See id. at 6 Petitioner identifies this exhibit as “Exhibit 13 of Complaint, dated November 27, 2023,” which comprises a claim chart mapping accused products to claim 1. when “a magnetic element [is] sealed within a rotor,” it necessarily means being “axially adjacent,” as Petitioner alleges. See Ex. 1019. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that this chart instead labels product components that are adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis. Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1019, 6–7). In addition, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]his [mapping] is in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms and does not suggest that any component ‘sealed within’ another component would categorically be axially adjacent thereto.” Id. We note that Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary meaning of “axially adjacent” for other asserted grounds, arguing that components which are adjacent to one another along a central axis are “axially adjacent.” E.g., Pet. 55–57. Accordingly, we find, for purposes of this Decision, that the plain and ordinary meaning of “axially adjacent” is being adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis, and does not mean a magnetic element sealed within a rotor. Id. at 20. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“would have found it obvious to include Wampler’s “techniques related to its axially aligned inflow tube” in the HeartMateIII device taught by Bourque. Pet. 81–88. Petitioner argues that Wampler teaches an arrangement for which “[g]ood anatomic compatibility is possible . . . fitting well between the apex of the heart and the adjacent diaphragm.” Id. at 83 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 76) (alterations in original). Petitioner reasons that applying Wampler’s arrangement to Bourque combines old elements performing known functions yielding expected results. Id. at 83–84. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known from Wampler that an axial inflow, as taught by Wampler, would have improved blood flow for the device of Bourque by eliminating the flow restrictive elbow in Bourque. Id. at 84 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 648–649; Ex. 1007, 2; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76). Petitioner contends that Bourque recognized certain components, including inflow components, were the cause of clinical troubles, and that Wampler “taught how to eliminate these components that caused clinical troubles–using the inlet to also ‘serve[] as the inflow canula.’” Id. at 85–86 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 741–747; Ex. 1007, 1, 5; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76). Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Wampler’s arrangement would have reduced “rates of infection” by avoiding placement of the pump in a preperitoneal pocket person of ordinary skill in the art “would have adhered to the express teachings of [Wampler], which focused on ‘[g]ood anatomic compatibility’ so that the device ‘fit[s] well between the apex of the heart and the adjacent diaphragm,’ eliminating the need for a peritoneal pocket dissection associated with increased rates of infection.” Id. at 86–87 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 651–654; Ex. 1008 ¶ 76) (second and third alterations in original). Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the asserted combination of Bourque and Wampler “would ‘fit[] well between the apex of the heart and the adjacent diaphragm’ due to the pump’s ‘development as a compact’ device and the existence of several similar LVADs that fit well at that position.” Id. at 87 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 652–655; Ex. 1007, 5). Lastly, Petitioner argues that the asserted combination would have been obvious to try, because “there were a finite number (i.e., two) [of] options for LVAD implantation: the device would be implanted at a preperitoneal pocket, or at the cardiac apex.” Id. at 87–88 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 656). At this stage, we find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive, and find that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support combining Wampler and Bourque’s teachings in the manner Petitioner does.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,754,077 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00114 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, and 18–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Bourque and Wampler.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). 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). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the Challenged Claims of the ’879 patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenMixed
“Decision we find “axially adjacent” to mean “adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis.” Petitioner does not contend or show in the Petition that Wampler teaches a magnetically driven rotor adjacent to a first magnetic device as measured along a central axis. See Pet. 24–26. In” slip op. at 30
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 1. We find, for purposes of this appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of skill reflected in these references and in the ’879 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).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Magnetic Device” and “Magnetically Driven Rotor” along a “Central Axis”. Ex. 1019, 6. We find nothing in Exhibit 1019 that defines “axially adjacent” to mean “a magnetic element sealed within a rotor,” as Petitioner alleges. In this regard, Patent Owner argues as follows: Exhibit 1019 contains no mention of “a magnetic element sealed within a rotor” or a contention that such a configuration would represent an “axially adjacent” orientation of such components. Instead, [in Exhibit 1019], Patent Owner illustrates a Petitioner product and labels components identified as the claimed magnetically driven rotor and first magnetic device that are adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis. [See Ex. 1019 at 5]. This is in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms and does not suggest that any component “sealed within” another component would categorically be axially adjacent thereto.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,572,879 - PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00112 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 10, 11, 14, and 17 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Bourque and Wampler.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). 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). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the Challenged Claims of the ’357 patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“4. Determination as to a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence of record, we conclude, for the reasons provided above, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 10, 11, 14, and 17 of the ’357 patent as obvious over Bourque and Wampler.” slip op. at 37
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 1. We find, for purposes of this appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of skill reflected in these references and in the ’357 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).” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In sum, Petitioner maintains a narrower construction of “magneto coupling” is correct, and alleges grounds of unpatentability based on both its narrower proposed construction (a construction encompassed by the broader construction), as well as based on the broader construction that Patent Owner does not dispute. We, therefore, find no merit to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s contention “contradicts itself” or fails to present a “prima facie obviousness position.” See Prelim. Resp. 3. Patent Owner does not dispute the broader construction applied by Petitioner, which encompasses the narrower construction Petitioner proposes. For purposes of this Decision, we apply the broader construction of “magneto coupling,” which encompasses generating a rotating field either by rotating magnets or by an electromagnet / stator.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,351,357 - PTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00113 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17 are obvious over Bourque and Wampler.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). 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). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the Challenged Claims of the ’415 patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Decision we find “axially adjacent” to mean “adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis.” Petitioner does not contend or show in the Petition that Wampler teaches a magnetically driven rotor adjacent to a first magnetic device as measured along a central axis. See Pet. 24–25. In opposition, Patent Owner argues, and we agree on the current record, as follows: Wampler does not teach or suggest “a magnetically driven rotor . . . axially adjacent to a first magnetic device” based on its imbedding of permanent magnets 88 in the impeller 74 because these components are not adjacent to one another as measured along the central axis of the device. Instead, the magnet segments 88 and impeller 74 are aligned with, and overlap, one another as measured along the central axis in Wampler’s configuration. See Ex. 1008, [where the magnet segments are housed within the impeller blades.] Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1008, ¶ 18, Figs. 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19). We find Patent Owner’s arguments refuting Petitioner’s contention that the Challenged Claims would have been obvious over Wampler, alone, have substantial merit. We, therefore, turn to Petitioner’s contentions based on Bourque, in combination with Wampler, which instead rely on Bourque as teaching the “axially adjacent” limitation.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 1. We find, for purposes of this appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of skill reflected in these references and in the ’415 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).” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We find insufficient support for Petitioner’s assertion that “a magnetic element sealed within a rotor is ‘axially adjacent.’” Pet. 24. Moreover, we find Patent Owner’s definition of the claim language reflects its plain and ordinary meaning and is consistent with the disclosure of the ’415 patent (which illustrates only a “magnetically driven rotor” positioned adjacent to a “first magnetic device” as measured along a central axis). See Ex. 1001, Fig. 2. It is also consistent with the construction Petitioner appears to contend is the correct construction, as applied by Petitioner in, for example, it’s contentions based on the asserted combination of Bourque and Wampler. See Pet. 60 (relying on Bourque’s teaching of a rotor and magnetic device adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis with regard to the “axially adjacent” limitation and not on Wampler’s magnets embedded in the impeller at the same location along a central axis). Accordingly, we find, for purposes of this Decision and based on the current record, that the plain and ordinary meaning of “axially adjacent,” as shown by Patent Owner, is “adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis,” and apply this definition to our analysis of Petitioner’s contentions below.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,376,415 - PTAB · Jun 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00216 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Thiel and Gruber.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2023); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2024). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’138 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“exercise of discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 88–89; Prelim. Resp. 3–8. In evaluating these arguments, we use a two-part framework, with the first part being 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, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (addressing in a two part framework the factors presented in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III(C)(5), first paragraph)). As we discuss below, we are not persuaded that the first part of the framework is met.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or manufacturing engineering; mechatronics; electrical engineering plus coursework in mechanical engineering, manufacturing engineering, or mechatronics; or a similar technical degree,” and “at least 2 years of experience designing eyewear and/or consumer electronics.” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Petitioner adds that “[w]ork experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience.” Id. at 23. Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’138 patent or identify any shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See generally Prelim. Resp. level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 22–23. We view this definition for the level of ordinary skill as consistent with the ’138 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Here, neither party sets forth any term for claim construction. Pet. 23–24; see Prelim. Resp. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,487,138
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.