- PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · PGR2025-00016 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 4–14 on all asserted grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute a post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 362–63, 369–70 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and “notes that it substantially tracks” Patent Owner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 19–20; see also id. at 20 n.7 (defining one of ordinary skill in the art as having “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical or Agricultural Engineering and two years of experience in the design of machines, or have had equivalent knowledge and experience”). Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. Patent Owner’s proposal is the same, except for use of the term “machines” instead of “vehicles.” Furthermore, Patent Owner does not argue at this stage of the proceeding that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would understand either the challenged patent or the prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“In contrast, we view the record at this stage as supporting an understanding of the “frame” in “mainframe” as a supporting structure. Patent Owner provides a dictionary defining “frame” as a “rigid supporting structure” (Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2009 at 3)), and Petitioner proposes “a supporting structure” based on that definition (see Pet. Reply CC Br. 3 (mistakenly citing Ex. 2007 rather than Ex. 2009)). Further, this dictionary definition does not contradict the “mainframe” described in the Specification or any other intrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Fig. 4, 2:44–45 (“FIG. 4 is a perspective view of a mainframe of a compact tool carrier.”); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322–23 (stating that judges may “rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents”).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Patent Owner’s argument does not identify a deficiency in the Petition, however, because we did not adopt any part of Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “mainframe,” including the phrase “the body,” which serves as the starting point of Patent Owner’s argument here. See § II.C.3. Instead, we preliminarily construe “mainframe” under its plain and ordinary meaning as a primary supporting structure. Id. Limitation 4.2 makes clear that the “mainframe” supports the “loader.” The current record supports that at least the structures shaded in green and blue in the annotated version of Figure 1 of KR996 immediately above are the primary supporting structure for the loader (i.e., a “mainframe”)—i.e., when in operation, those structures provide the primary “weight-bearing frame supporting the loader unit 40” in KR996. Pet. 24 (“KR996’s mainframe includes the frame components of KR996 vehicle for supporting the attached loader unit 40 by providing structural or weight-bearing support when the vehicle is in operation.” (citing Velinsky Decl. ¶¶ 65–67)); Pet. 26–27 (stating that the “mainframe” are the “portions [that] are part of a frame or body making up the KR996 vehicle when in operation providing structural and weight-bearing support for the loader unit 40, in addition to support for other features such as the control station and drive mechanism” (citing Velinsky Decl. ¶ 67)); see, e.g., Ex. 1005, Figs. 7–9 (showing the vehicle of KR996 in operation). The testimony of Dr. Velinsky supports these positions, explaining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the green and blue structures above as part of a “mainframe.” See Velinsky Decl. ¶¶ 66– 67, cited at Pet. 24–27. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented declaration testimony—but rather only attorney argument— supporting that one of ordinary skill in the art would have identified fixture 41 in KR996 as something other than a “mainframe.” See Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“‘[A]ttorney argument is not evidence’ and cannot rebut other admitted evidence.” (quoting Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017))). On the current record, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that KR996 discloses or suggests the mainframe limitations.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 12,098,063 - PTAB · Jun 2, 2025 · PGR2025-00003 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–4 and 8–21 because the Board found a more-likely-than-not showing of written description and enablement failures; the obviousness ground did not meet that threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the prior art relevant to the ’600 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–53 (emphasis added). Based on this express definition, the current record does not support the interpretation of Dr. Triggs-Raine that the “term ‘modified PH20 polypeptide,’ therefore, has a purely structural meaning in the context of the specification.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 68.4 Indeed, when reproducing the definition from this column of the ’600 patent, Dr. Triggs-Raine does not include any text after the first period, but the ’600 patent text continues to detail specific elements required including a requirement that replacements in the PH20 polypeptide are permitted “so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Ex. 1001, 48:44‒46. On this” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“on the ’429 patent, and there is no evidence of record that the Examiner meaningfully considered the relevant disclosures of the ’429 patent. We find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s reliance on the Examiner’s issuance of an office action with a written description rejection over a different issue that also included some double patenting rejections. As to Becton, Dickinson Factor (e), “whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the [E]xaminer erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art,” Petitioner provides persuasive evidence of Examiner error. See Pet. 36–39 (citing Ex. 1009, 21–27). We agree with Petitioner that the Examiner overlooked the written description requirement with regard to claim 1. As discussed below, we find that, on the current record, the evidence sufficiently shows that it is more likely than not that the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. See Section X. We, thus, find that the Examiner erred by either overlooking, or failing to appreciate, the factual underpinning necessary to support a written description for the breadth of an enormous genus claim such as claim 1 of the ’600 patent.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“XIII. CONCLUSION Petitioner has, at this stage, established that it will more likely than not prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. This determination is, however, based on a preliminary record and is not final on any issues of patentability. We will make a final determination on the patentability of the challenged claims, as necessary and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, based on a fully developed record through trial. XIV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) post grant review of claims 1–4 and 8–21 of the ’600 patent is hereby instituted on the grounds set forth in the Petition, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and” slip op. at 60
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,952,600 - Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · PGR2024-00048 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–6 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024). Upon considering the evidence and arguments presented, we determine, as discussed below, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny1 Petitioner’s request to institute post-grant review of claims 1–6.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Khatri, proposes a definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Dr. Khatri, however, notes that his opinions would be the same under either his proposal or Petitioner’s proposal. Id. ¶¶ 25–26. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the Preliminary Response, it “adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 22–23; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–26). We determine that the current record supports Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “MLC memory modules” and “SLC memory module.” Pet. 23–28. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s constructions, but does not contest them because it argues that construction of these terms is not necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. Prelim. Resp. 14. Based on the record presented, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “more likely than not” standard for instituting a post- grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he written description requirement is met when the disclosure relied on for support ‘reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citation omitted)). The written description inquiry is a question of fact, is context specific, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1357–58). Factors used to evaluate the sufficiency of a disclosure include: 1) “the existing knowledge in the particular field”; 2) “the extent and content of the prior art”; 3) “the maturity of the science or technology”; and 4) “the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1359). As support for the term “memory space,” the ’612 patent explains that because “the SLC NAND flash is used to boost the lifetime (endurance) of the storage system, it can be considerably lesser in amount than the MLC NAND flash.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–23; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. As an example, the ’612 specification states that “a system may set SLC NAND flash equal to 12.5% or 25% of MLC NAND flash (total non-volatile memory storage space=MLC+SLC).” Ex. 1001, 5:23–25; see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 51, 62. In addition, we find persuasive Dr. Khatri’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “there are two spaces—MLC and SLC—where data is stored, and the total memory space is the combination of the two.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. Further, the ’612 patent’s Figure 1 depicts “memory space,” e.g., dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) 20, one or more disks 24, MLC NAND flash memory module 26, and SLC NAND flash memory module 28. Ex. 1001, 5:37–45, Fig. 1; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. The ’612 patent’s Figure 4 also depicts “memory space,” e.g., NAND flash memory bank 56 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60a and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62a” and NAND flash memory bank 58 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60b and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62b.” Ex. 1001, 7:8–14, Fig. 4; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. On the record before us, we find the above noted disclosures to be sufficient to support the disputed claim language. For these reasons, the ’612 patent’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,854,612 - Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCInstitutedPTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Julia Heaney · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–17 and 22–28 and all asserted grounds, finding a sufficient likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one claim challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Further, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion not to institute review. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther
“On this record, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed experience level of at least five years in measurement and analysis of coefficient of friction to be supported. As to the necessity of experience in textile engineering and fiber science, Patent Owner’s position, although not supported by declarant analysis of the factors listed above, is consistent with the disclosure of the ’854 patent, which describes features of a mesh layer in textile and fiber terms. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:17–11:14, 12:65–13:8, 14:20–24. On the whole, however, we do not discern on this record how specific experience in textile engineering and fiber science of a person of ordinary skill would materially alter the outcome at this stage of the proceeding. For purposes of this decision only, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, except for the requirement of five years of experience in measurement and analysis of coefficient of friction. The level of skill in the art remains an open issue in this proceeding. Further submissions by the parties may include argument and evidence that would assist in the resolution of this issue at the close of trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 10; Reply 1, 4. Patent Owner contends the terms “mesh layer” and “coefficient of friction” require construction. Prelim. Resp. 14–16; Sur-reply 2–5. We have considered the parties’ arguments and discuss them below with regard to each of the terms Patent Owner contends should be construed. Because our determination that Petitioner demonstrates at least one challenged claim meets the threshold for institution (see SAS Inst., 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60) is not based on construing the term “mesh layer” or “coefficient of friction,” we determine we need not construe either claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing 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.”)). As further discussed below, we invite the parties to address claim construction at trial.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the ’854 patent specification does not include clear and explicit lexicography or a disclaimer that would support requiring “coefficient of friction” to be determined by a specific ASTM test method. The portion of the specification Patent Owner asserts as a definition of “coefficient of friction” (see Ex. 1001, 11:31–42) is a description of an embodiment; we find it does not express patentee intent to redefine the term. Further, the statement that “the coefficient of friction … may be determined using the … ASTM D1894 standard test method” (id. at 11:32–35) indicates that use of that specific test method is optional. Accordingly, in the absence of patentee lexicography or disavowal, we do not limit the scope of the term “coefficient of friction” to require that it be measured by a specific ASTM standard. Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims.”); In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). We note that the ’854 patent specification sets forth a definition for the coefficient of friction between the surfaces of the mesh material and the slide surface. Ex. 1001, 4:38–46. As stated above, however, we do not expressly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. Should the parties address the construction of “coefficient of friction” at trial, we will make a determination after the close of evidence and any hearing.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over FR458 with the ’4666 patent and WO133; claims 1–17 are also unpatentable over WO742 with the ’4666 patent and WO133.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ positions about the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar. (See Pet., 13–14; see PO Resp., 10–12.) In light of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations and would have had access to team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Pet. 13–14; see PO Resp. 10–12; see Dec. 6–7.) Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’795 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Although Petitioner puts forth constructions for terms in the claims of the ’795 patent, Patent Owner argues that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the controversy between the parties. (See Pet. 14–19; see PO Resp. 12.) Except as indicated below, we agree that express construction of the claim terms is not required because the parties do not materially dispute the meanings of the terms. 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))). Limitation (c) of claim 1 recites “syrup formulation” once and then “syrup” by itself twice. The parties agree that two recitations of “syrup” by itself mean and are synonymous with “syrup formulation.” (See Tr. 15:16– 19 (counsel for Petitioner: “[T]he term, syrup, by itself, means the formulation. And for that reason, we--it’s our position that it’s the syrup formulation that has the specific viscosity requirements as well as the other features that we discussed.”); 31:17–20 (counsel for Patent Owner: “But those wherein clauses, what it’s referring to, the syrup formulation and the syrup -- it was all to a complete to a final formulation, right, it’s not just the agave syrup. Everybody here recognizes and understands that from that perspective.”).) Thus, the parties agree that the “viscosity of less than 1500 centipoise at about 22 degrees” limits the final “pharmaceutical syrup formulation for oral administration,” not the “agave syrup” limitation in limitation (b) of claim 1.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues further that Dr. Crowley testifies that, “[g]enerally, suspensions having a viscosity in the range of 20 to 150 cP are considered readily pourable,” but that this range is well below the viscosity range of 200–900 cP taught in WO133 and the preferred viscosity range of 1000–3000 cP taught in the ’4666 patent. (See PO Resp. 45 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 59).) Dr. Crowley testifies that “increasing the viscosity of a suspension formulation has been shown to impair the dissolution characteristics of immediate release acetaminophen” and that, “[w]ith respect to suspensions for oral administration, having a higher viscosity is generally not desirable.” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.) According to Patent Owner, this is a “teaching away” because Petitioner’s own expert testimony demonstrates a motivation not to combine the acetaminophen formulation of FR458- Example 1 with the 1000-3000 cP range of the ’4666 patent and the 200-900 cP range of WO133 since by his own admission doing so would yield bad results (i.e., impairing the dissolution characteristics of the acetaminophen) and generally undesirable higher viscosity. (PO Resp. 46 (citing Berkland Decl., Ex. 2009 ¶ 148).) Dr. Crowley’s cited testimony, however, is about general characteristics of suspensions for oral administration, whereas the WO133 refers specifically to sweetened analgesic formulations. (See Ex. 1006, 8:1– 3 (“The viscosity of the acetaminophen composition generally ranges from about 200–900 centipoise, preferably from about 300–700 centipoise.”); see Pet. Reply 8–9.) As Petitioner notes, Dr. Crowley also testifies that the viscosity of 29 commercially available, pediatric liquid oral antibiotic formulations were measured and determined to range from 20 to 1,780 cP” and that “[t]he viscosity of Children’s Tylenol has been reported to be less than 1,000 centipoise at shear rates between 0.05 and 0.2 reciprocal seconds.” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 58.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Crowley’s testimony contradicts the teachings regarding viscosity of analgesic formulations in the cited prior art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,617,795 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,617,795 - Lumi Legend Corporation v. Manehu Product Alliance, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2024-00014 · APJ Barry L Grossman · PGR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment against itself and held claims 33–36 unpatentable.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“October 25, 2024, from counsel for Patent Owner, Patent Owner requested authorization to file “a request for adverse judgment against itself under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).” Ex. 3003 (emphases added). Our Rule 42.73(b) states “A party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” The Board granted Patent Owner’s request. Ex. 3003. Patent Owner then filed its “Request for Adverse Judgment Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).” Paper 11 (Request for Adverse Judgment). This Request, however, stated, in error, that Patent Owner requested “adverse judgment against Petitioner on claims 33-36, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4).” Id. (emphases added). Our Rule 42.73(b)(4) concerns “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) (emphasis added). Subsection (b)(4) states one of the actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment is “[a]bandonment of the contest.” Id. The actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment, however, are never reached when a party states unequivocally that it requests “judgment against itself.” that the Request for Adverse Judgement is seeking adverse judgment against itself, not Petitioner. Id. As stated in the title of Patent Owner’s Request for Adverse Judgment, we consider this request under our Rule 42.73(b). As corrected, the Request seeks a “final adverse judgment against [Patent Owner] on claims 33-36,” which are all the challenged claims. Thus, claims 33–36 are held to be unpatentable. 1” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,781,703 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · PGR2024-00043 · APJ John G New · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on all challenged claims, finding a sufficient likelihood that claims are anticipated or obvious under Grounds 1–10; it found Ground 11’s enablement challenge insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board “may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless … the information presented in the petition … if such information is not rebutted would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” For the reasons we explain below, we institute post-grant review of the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“asserted reference qualifies as prior art is public accessibility. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “[A]t the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application (at top center). See Ex. 1001, code (60) (listing “provisional application No. 5,995,873, filed on Oct. 2, 2006”). However, simply to claim the priority benefit of an earlier application is not necessarily to receive it. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority.… Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120.”). As the diagram shows (and as we have verified), the ’529 application was a continuation-in-part of the preceding ’329 application. See Ex. 1001, code (63). However, the ’529 application was abandoned on February 10, 2016 (See Ex. 1052), and the succeeding application, U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 15,474,875 (the “’875 application”) which is listed in the ’943 patent as being a continuation-in-part of the ’529 application, was not filed until March 30, 2017. See Ex. 1001, code (63) (stating that “said application No. 15/474,875 is a continuation-in-part of application No. 12/508,529”). Put simply, the ’875 application was not filed until over a year after the ’529 application was abandoned. As 35 U.S.C. § 120 states, in relevant part: An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385, which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. (emphasis added). In other words, if there is a “break in the chain” of priority caused by the abandonment or termination of an application claiming priority prior to filing of a subsequent application, the subsequent application loses the priority benefit of the abandoned or terminated application, as well as the priority benefit of all applications that antedate that abandoned or terminated application. Such is the case presently before us. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the abandonment of the ’529 application prior to filing of the continuation-in-part ’875 application broke the priority chain leading to the ’720 provisional application, and the ’943 patent cannot, therefore, claim the priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application’s October 2, 2006 filing date. Consequently, the earliest date of which the ’943 patent could possibly claim the priority benefit is that of U.S. Patent Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/403,680 (the “’680 provisional application”) (located at the top of the left branch of the “family tree” depicted above), which has a filing date of September 20, 2010. See Ex. 1001, code (60). Burnett (i.e., the ’329 application) was filed on October 2, 2007 and thus antedates the ’680 provisional application. Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument fails based on the current record, and Burnett is prior art to the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 55
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) is not tenable. In deciding whether to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) in situations where only some of the challenges fall within its scope, we evaluate the challenges and determine whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting on all challenges. If so, the panel will evaluate whether the entire petition should be denied.” See USPTO, SAS Q&As (June 5, 2018) at D1, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/ sas_qas_20180605.pdf; see also Kansas State Univ. Res. Found., PGR2022- 00021, Paper 11 at 7–8 & n.3 (Vidal Feb. 24, 2023) (holding that “the Board will further evaluate … whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting review on all challenges presented in the Petition”). We having instituted post grant review based at least upon claim 1 of Ground 1 of the Petition. Even if the panel agreed with Patent Owner that Grounds 5–8 present “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” previously presented to the Office, § 325(d) would not be “sufficiently implicated” due to the 7 other asserted grounds. We therefore do not proceed with the § 325(d) analysis established in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) and decline to exercise our discretion to deny the petition on that basis.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,844,943 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · PGR2024-00040 · APJ James A Tartal · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 on all asserted grounds, finding the Llop ’126 and Sichuan combination more likely than not to render claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute a post-grant review, we must determine that “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Because claims 11 and 13 were disclaimed, our determination of whether to institute review considers only Petitioner’s allegations directed to claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 of the ’209 patent (the “Challenged Claims”). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we” slip op. at 2
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“in compliance with § 1.321(a), disclaiming one or more claims in the patent,” and “[n]o post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e). A disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) is “considered as part of the original patent” as of the date on which it is “recorded” in the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). For a disclaimer to be “recorded” in the Office, the document filed by the patent owner must:” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest priority date of the ’209 patent “would at least have had a doctoral degree in dentistry and at least three to four years of experience working with guided dental surgery for installing dental implants and prostheses.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art at this stage. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the ’209 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“base” require construction “to resolve certain of the unpatentability grounds presented.” Pet. 13–14. In particular, Petitioner proposes that “drill guide” means “drill guide made from metal or metallic alloy without traditional plastic or acrylic,” and that “fixation base” means “fixation base made from metal, metallic alloy or other strong material without traditional plastic or acrylic.” Id. Patent Owner contends that we need not address the constructions proposed by Petitioner because the issues addressed by Petitioner’s proposed construction only concern allegations of unpatentability directed to claims 11 and 13, which Patent Owner disclaimed. Prelim. Resp. 12; Disclaimer 1. The issue of whether the claimed drill guide and fixation base is limited to certain materials only concerns Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the moot grounds of lack of written description support and indefiniteness asserted against disclaimed claims 11 and 13. See Pet. 36–44; 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)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that we need not explicitly construe the claim terms “drill guide” or “fixation base” for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,806,209 - Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · PGR2023-00039 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 24 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept; the petitioner did not prove the remaining challenged claims unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id. (citation omitted). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a degree in chemical engineering, petroleum engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field with 1–2 years of experience in designing power generation systems, Blockchain mining systems, or other comparable hands-on experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner adds that “[a]lternatively, a person having 3–5 years of experience in the Blockchain mining industry would also qualify as a POSITA” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We apply the same claim construction standard used in district court actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2024). In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“To address that “the mining processors are connected to the network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database,” as recited by limitation [1c_iii], Petitioner asserts that CryptoKube’s system includes “Bitcoin miners such as spondooliestech SP35 servers.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4). And, relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Kasdorf, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that to mine Bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database, which is implemented as a public ledger distributed among many peer-to-peer devices connected to the Internet. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 108–109; Ex. 1010 ¶ 419). Mr. Kasdorf’s declaration testimony is nearly verbatim to the Petition and similarly provides no indication as to what in CryptoKube constitutes a “mining processor” other than his conclusory opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that to mine bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the 19 We note that Mr. Kasdorf’s reliance on Kheterpal is limited to Kheterpal’s background discussion regarding the Bitcoin protocol inasmuch as it “defines a system in which the creation and distribution of the bitcoin cryptocurrency is governed by consensus among a peer-to-peer network” and includes “a public ledger in which new transactions are verified and recorded by members of the network via cryptography.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 4). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that in the Petition, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Kasdorf explains or “cite[s] any evidence regarding which component is the ‘necessarily’ present mining processor (limitation 1[c_i]) or how this unspecified mining processor is ‘connected to the network interface and adapted to . . . communicate with the blockchain database’ (limitation 1[c_iii]).” PO Resp. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 104–105, 108–109).” slip op. at 21
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s contention that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation” (Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 21)) is an improper new argument. In determining whether an argument is a proper argument in reply, we look to see if the Reply argument is responsive to an argument from Patent Owner and expands on a position in the Petition. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e have held that a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.”). Or, if Petitioner relies on previously unidentified disclosure “to make a meaningfully distinct contention.” Id. at 1383 (“[W]e held that a petitioner who asserted in its reply previously unidentified prior-art disclosures ‘to make a meaningfully distinct contention’ was impermissibly raising a new theory of unpatentability.”). We find that Petitioner’s argument in reply is closer to the later situation. Here Petitioner does not expand on a position from the Petition that Patent Owner criticizes based on the merits of the contentions. Rather, Petitioner supplements its conclusory assertion that a “mining processor” is necessarily present in CryptoKube’s spondooliestech SP35 servers (Pet. 23, 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4)) with its new assertion that that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation.” Pet. Reply 11. Petitioner does not purport to have presented this theory in the Petition. Id. Instead, Petitioner argues that this theory was properly raised in response to what Petitioner alleges to be an admission by” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,574,372 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,574,372 - MPL Brands NV, Inc. v. Buzzballz, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · PGR2024-00035 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on all asserted grounds after finding the patent eligible for PGR and each challenged claim more likely than not unpatentable under at least one obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level). However, we find some ambiguity in the last sentence of Petitioner’s proposal (“A POSITA could substitute additional education for industry experience and vice versa.”) because the reference to “additional education” is not tethered to relevant education. Accordingly, we modify the last sentence of Petitioner’s proposal to clarify that the additional education must be relevant. Thus, we restate that for purposes of this Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’441 patent would have had: (i) an associate’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical, industrial or manufacturing engineering and (ii) at least two to three years of practical experience with designing or manufacturing mechanical products such as food or beverage packaging. A POSITA could substitute additional relevant education for practical experience and vice versa. B. Post-Grant Review Eligibility As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Petitioner has” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“In view of the evidence discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that there is adequate written description support for a transparent container body such that a depression in the container base is “visible through at least a portion of the container body,” as recited in claims 9, 10, 15, and 16. Prelim. Resp. 9. Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that the ’441 patent does not disclose “a transparent/translucent liquid” (Pet. 7), we again disagree. As Patent Owner points out, “the ’441 Patent mentions beverages, such as ‘beer and soda,’ as liquids for which the claimed container would be suitable.” Prelim. Resp. 10 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:25–27). Patent Owner demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that beer is typically see-through, or translucent.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 (Till) ¶ 24 (discussing an inspection apparatus for bottles that “are filled with a transparent liquid (e.g. beer, table water, mineral water, wine etc.)”); Ex. 2013 (Schnuckle) ¶ 8 (noting “translucent to transparent liquids such as water, soda, juice, or the like”)). We agree with Patent Owner that the ’441 patent’s identification of “beer and soda as beverages the described and claimed container was intended to hold” provides adequate written description support “for having transparent or translucent liquids within the container.”12 Prelim. Resp. 10. For the reasons discussed above, on this record Petitioner has not demonstrated that claims 9, 10, 15, and 16 include subject matter having a November 10, 2023, priority date. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the ’441 patent is eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 3(n)(1)(A).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. As an initial matter, Mr. Kirkpatrick is opining about a design patent application, and Patent Owner has not established that Mr. Kirkpatrick possesses the education and experience of a designer of ordinary skill in the art of ornamental aspects of containers for storing liquids or solids. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 5 (implying that Mr. Kirkpatrick is a generalist whose experience with design patents is in preparing formal drawings of designs invented by others).17 For this reason alone, on this record we accord Mr. Kirkpatrick’s declaration little weight on the question of whether the ’195 parent application provides adequate written description support for originally-filed Figure 2 of the ’813 design application. See, e.g., Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case . . . a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.”). Even if Mr. Kirkpatrick’s opinions were relevant, they would not change our conclusion regarding lack of adequate written description. Mr. Kirkpatrick attributes the differences between the drawings to “choices in drafting strategy of the respective illustrators,” such as how to use “contour lines to illustrate sloped surfaces” and how much detail to include for well-known features like pop-tops. See Ex. 2001 (Kirkpatrick Decl.) ¶¶ 19, 23–24, 28–32.18 These arguments are unavailing. First, there is no evidence of record indicating that the figures in the ’195 parent application and ’813 design application were created by different illustrators. Second, 17 Patent Owner also has not established that Mr. Kirkpatrick possesses the education and experience of a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’441 patent, as we have defined it here. Supra Section II.A. 18 Mr. Kirkpatrick’s analysis of a photograph of a can submitted by the applicant during prosecution (see Ex. 2001 (Kirkpatrick Decl.) ¶¶ 25–32) is additionally unavailing because there is no evidence of record indicating that the patent illustrator(s) used this particular photograph or the depicted can to create the patent illustrations. we agree with Petitioner that even if different illustrators employ different drafting strategies, this “does not absolve Patent Owner’s responsibility not to add new matter.” Prelim. Reply 6.” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Because the ’441 patent is eligible for post-grant review, we turn to an analysis of whether the Petition demonstrates “that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). C. Petitioner’s Grounds of Alleged Unpatentability As noted above in Section I.E, Petitioner asserts four different obviousness grounds. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not address the merits of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,932,441
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.