- Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2023-01208 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Cook and Bennett because the combination teaches the claimed wireless power system and provides reasons to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) and at least two years of industry or equivalent research experience in the field of 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Based on the effective filing date of the ’687 patent, we apply the pre-AIA version of § 103. wireless energy transfer,” but “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37– 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Mark Allen. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–41. Patent Owner “does not disagree with Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 9–10. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“1. Confirm compatibility of the resonators and provide authorization for initiation of transfer of power Patent Owner proposes construing the phrase “confirm compatibility of the resonators and provide authorization for initiation of transfer of power” in independent claims 1, 7, and 13 to mean “verify that parameters of the resonators will permit power transfer and provide authorization prior to initiating the transfer of power.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner argues that the claim language “recit[es] two functions—confirming resonator compatibility and providing authorization,” which “indicates that confirming compatibility of the resonators must be different than providing authorization.” Id. at 7–8. Patent Owner also argues that the specification distinguishes “the confirmation of resonator compatibility” from “merely verifying that the vehicle to be charged is authorized to receive charging” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“a. Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning The evidence of record indicates that it would have been obvious to implement Cook’s wireless charging system using Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning. Ex. 1003 ¶ 114; Pet. 21–22. Specifically, Cook teaches that its wireless charging system requires “the right frequency” to charge a vehicle’s battery. Ex. 1007 ¶ 12; Pet. 24. But Cook does not teach how to adjust the resonant frequency of its wireless charging system to work with different vehicles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 114; Pet. 24. As discussed above, Bennett teaches tuning the power transmitting unit’s resonant frequency to the target electronic device’s requested resonant frequency. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37–38, 57– 58, Fig. 3. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning would improve Cook’s wireless charger by making it compatible with different vehicles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 114; Pet. 24– 25. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the combination to work because Bennett explains that its techniques apply generally to battery-powered devices. Ex. 1003 ¶ 121; Ex. 1005 ¶ 3; Pet. 28–29.” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“in the Reply is an improper new argument. PO Sur-reply 15. We disagree. The Petition expressly relies on Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning as teaching the compatibility limitation. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37–38, 41). Patent Owner responds by arguing that Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning is an optional step that occurs after initiating power transfer. PO Resp. 23–24. In the Reply, Petitioner responds by pointing to Bennett’s Figure 3 as evidence that the resonant frequency tuning occurs before initiating power transfer. Pet. Reply 18–21 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 57, Fig. 3; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 28–29). Petitioner’s argument in the Reply properly relies on the same feature (i.e., Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning) and the same embodiment (i.e., the system shown in Figures 1 and 3) as the Petition. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 29, 37–38, 57 (“FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating resonant power transfer operations performed using the power system of FIG. 1 . . . .”). Thus, Petitioner’s reliance on Bennett’s Figure 3 is a proper response to arguments in Patent Owner’s Response, not an improper new theory of unpatentability. See Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ([T]he arguments and evidence in the reply must not be part of a new theory of unpatentability” and “must be responsive to the patent owner’s contentions or the Board’s institution decision.”).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,912,687 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,912,687 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2023-01182 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 16 was cancelled on Patent Owner’s motion; claim 17 was held unpatentable as obvious over Cook ’554 and over Lee and Cook ’523.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) and at least two to three years of industry or equivalent research experience in the field of wireless energy transfer.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Based on the effective filing date of the ’719 patent, we apply the pre-AIA version of § 103. by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Mark Allen. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37– 41. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. PO Resp. 14. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“[i]t will be appreciated that a network of capacitors, as used herein, may in general refer to any circuit topology including one or more capacitors, including without limitation any of the circuits specifically disclosed herein using capacitors, or any other equivalent or different circuit structure(s), unless another meaning is explicitly provided or otherwise clear from the context. Id. at 52:32–38 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’719 patent expressly defines the phrase “a network of capacitors” as any circuit topology including one or more capacitors. Id.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing. Even if Patent Owner is correct that elements E and F in Figure 4-12 of the Cook Provisional only represent the delivered power level (not the received power level), other portions of the Cook Provisional disclose tuning the resonant frequency of the resonant circuit based on the received power level. See Pet. Reply 5–6. In particular, the Cook Provisional states that “[t]he control system of the receiver is in charge of . . . antenna tuning control.” Ex. 1006, 31. The Cook Provisional also states that “[t]he receiver[’]s control system may determine the model parameters using specific measurements (e.g. antenna current and voltage, input power, etc.) and calibration routines.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the Cook Provisional discloses tuning the resonant frequency based on input power. Id.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“D. Motion to Amend Patent Owner’s non-contingent Motion to Amend requests that we cancel claim 16. Mot. Amend 1. Petitioner does not oppose Patent Owner’s request. Id. We grant Patent Owner’s unopposed request to cancel claim 16, and, as a result, we do not reach the asserted grounds for claim 16.” slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 8,461,719 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,461,719 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00842 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–29 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and granted EndyMed’s motion to join the ’386 IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the foregoing reasons, the underlying premise of Serendia’s arguments here and in the ’386 IPR remains substantially the same. Thus, for the same reasons discussed in our decision instituting the ’386 IPR, we find that EndyMed demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of challenged claims 1–29 of the ’836 patent. See ’386 IPR, Paper 18. That is not to say, however, that Serendia may not ultimately persuade us at trial of the deficiency of EndyMed’s showing based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“evidences nonobviousness for four different patents. In this situation, a presumption of nexus is appropriate only if patent owner demonstrates that the claims of all four patents “generally cover the same invention.” See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377 (“Where a product embodies claims from two patents, a presumption of nexus can be appropriate only if the claims of both patents generally cover the same invention.”). “The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.” Id. at 1378 (citation omitted). “In such situations, the 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.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, Serendia does not demonstrate that the four different patents cover the same invention. See Prelim. Resp. 59–74. Indeed, Serendia does not address U.S. Patents 9,775,774, 9,320,536, and 10,869,812 at all. See id. That Serendia separately sought patent protection for each of these four patents suggests that these patents do not generally cover the same invention. Cf Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378 (“The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.”). We made a similar determination in the ’386 IPR. See, e.g., ’386 IPR, Paper 18 at 38 (“Patent Owner fails to set forth which patents ‘generally cover’ the Sylfirm X device.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“We disagree with Serendia. EndyMed need not justify its delay where, as here, EndyMed satisfies the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely. Serendia also argues that joinder should be denied due to duplicative efforts with the parallel Delaware litigation, which involves the same parties and patent as here. See PO Opp. 3–4. That argument fails for the simple reason that EndyMed submits a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the Delaware litigation the same grounds that are asserted in the petition here or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised here. See Pet. Reply 1–2. A Sotera stipulation mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts, and we decline to discretionarily decline institution where a petitioner makes such a stipulation. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7–8. Thus, we will not discretionarily deny the petition or motion for joinder on the basis of the parallel Delaware litigation.8” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,480,836 - Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,198,416 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01191 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–28 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Wiz would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“After Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response, however, Petitioner filed a stipulation consistent with the stipulation filed in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (Decision Granting Institution) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”). Ex. 1107. On June 21, 2022, the Director issued guidance (“Director Guidance”) in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors.6 Notably, the Director stated that the Board “will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board].” Director Guidance, 3. With this guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under Fintiv because Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1107.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (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, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Patent Owner does not dispute that Veselov is the only reference that serves as the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds that was considered during prosecution of the ’326 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 63 (citing Ex. 1004, 109, 138). The Examiner, however, did not meaningfully address Veselov during prosecution of the ’326 patent. For example, the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Veselov to teach or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’326 patent. See id.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’326 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner offers essentially the same assessment of the level of skill in the art as Petitioner, arguing the following: a [POSITA] as of the ’326 patent’s earliest priority date (January 28, 2019), would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two years of industry experience or academic research experience in cyber security and virtualization, including cloud computing cybersecurity. Additional education can compensate for less experience and vice-versa. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 1–12, 19–26). We do not discern a material difference between the assessments of the level of skill in the art advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own assessment. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment. Petitioner’s assessment is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stavrou and it is consistent with the ’326 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under each party’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,775,326 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01190 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 would be obvious over Veselov and Mohanty.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“On June 21, 2022, the Director issued guidance (“Director Guidance”) in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors.7 Notably, the Director stated that the Board “will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board].” Director Guidance, 3. With this guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under Fintiv because Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1106.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (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, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Patent Owner does not dispute that Veselov is the only reference that serves as the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds that was considered during prosecution of the ’926 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 1004, 138, 142). The Examiner, however, did not meaningfully address Veselov during prosecution of the ’926 patent. For example, the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Veselov to teach or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’926 patent. See id. It is also undisputed that the Examiner did not consider the other references that serve as the basis of Petitioner’s asserted obviousness grounds (i.e., Mohanty, Ranum, Seo, and Hutchins) during prosecution. Nor did the Examiner have the benefit of Dr. Stavrou’s testimony regarding the teachings of Petitioner’s asserted references. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the Petition presents substantially the same art and arguments that were considered previously during prosecution of the ’926 patent.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“j. Summary as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Veselov and Mohanty.” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner offers essentially the same assessment of the level of skill in the art as Petitioner, arguing the following: a [POSITA] as of the ’926 patent’s earliest priority date (January 28, 2019), would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two years of industry experience or academic research experience in cyber security and virtualization, including cloud computing cybersecurity. Additional education can compensate for less experience and vice-versa. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 1–13, 19–26). We do not discern a material difference between the assessments of the level of skill in the art advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own assessment. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment. Petitioner’s assessment is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stavrou and it is consistent with the ’926 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under each party’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,740,926 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641
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.