- PTAB · Jul 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00236 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, or 30 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’468 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a doctorate degree (or equivalent) in bioengineering, genetics, genomics, chemistry, biochemistry, biophysics, molecular imaging or a related discipline with at least 2-4 years of academic, research, or industry experience in genomic technology. In the course of their training and experience, the POSA would have acquired a working knowledge of nucleic acid arrays, combinatorial chemistry techniques for making and using such arrays, nucleic acid sequencing and sample preparation techniques, such as barcoding, imaging methods for signal detection, as well as histopathology techniques for cell permeabilization and tissue handling. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner does not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 19. Because Petitioner’s unopposed definition is consistent with the ’468 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt that definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that Cantor does not teach or suggest contacting a ‘tissue section’ with its beads, let alone that its beads could be contacted with a tissue section to identify spatial location. Prelim. Resp. 37–44. In this case, we are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Cantor, sole inventor of Cantor (Ex. 2002 ¶ 29), that Cantor’s nucleic acid samples are made in bulk from the extraction of nucleic acids from a biological sample and mixed together “to create the sample nucleic acid prior to mixing that with the solid phase nucleic acids to capture molecule(s) from the sample nucleic acid.” Id. at ¶ 36 (citing EX.1031 1:5–6). More specifically, according to Dr. Cantor, “[f]or bulk-analysis methods, nucleic acids are extracted from the different types of cells within a tissue sample without preserving their spatial distribution.” Id. at ¶ 19. Dr. Cantor further explains that in bulk-analysis methods, the mixture is analyzed to determine if a particular nucleic acid was present in the tissue sample or not. They cannot, however, determine where the molecule was in the tissue sample. As such, bulk-analysis techniques provide no information about spatial location of biological molecules in tissue samples. This is in contrast to spatial analysis methods such as those claimed in the ’468 patent which can determine both if a biological molecule was present in a tissue sample and where the molecule was in the tissue sample. Id. at ¶¶ 16–17. Although we recognize that Cantor discloses “providing the beads according to an (X,Y) array” (Pet. 25–26, 32–33 (citing to Dr. Puglisi, Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 133, 135, respectively), this disclosure makes no mention of using this array to map where the nucleic acids of Cantor came from relative to the original sample, let alone when that original sample is a tissue. See e.g. Ex. 1031, 17. The only mention of “tissue” made in Cantor is in reference to where the sample may be obtained, for example, “[t]he biological sample can be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue.” Id. at 6. Cantor provides no teaching, however, regarding how to use a tissue sample with the probes and methods described in Cantor to identify where the target nucleic acids of Cantor were spatially located within the tissue section itself. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 142, 143 (Dr. Cantor testifying that (1) “a POSA would only be able to determine where on the array a target nucleic acid was captured, but not where in the original tissue section the nucleic acid came from,” because “all information about the spatial location of a target nucleic acid in a tissue sample is lost when the nucleic acid sample is prepared as Cantor teaches”; and (2) “Cantor [] does not teach or suggest contacting its solid supports (e.g. beads) with a tissue section and certainly not with its beads at known locations to obtain spatial information.”).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that Cantor does not teach or suggest contacting a ‘tissue section’ with its beads, let alone that its beads could be contacted with a tissue section to identify spatial location. Prelim. Resp. 37–44. In this case, we are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Cantor, sole inventor of Cantor (Ex. 2002 ¶ 29), that Cantor’s nucleic acid samples are made in bulk from the extraction of nucleic acids from a biological sample and mixed together “to create the sample nucleic acid prior to mixing that with the solid phase nucleic acids to capture molecule(s) from the sample nucleic acid.” Id. at ¶ 36 (citing EX.1031 1:5–6). More specifically, according to Dr. Cantor, “[f]or bulk-analysis methods, nucleic acids are extracted from the different types of cells within a tissue sample without preserving their spatial distribution.” Id. at ¶ 19. Dr. Cantor further explains that in bulk-analysis methods, the mixture is analyzed to determine if a particular nucleic acid was present in the tissue sample or not. They cannot, however, determine where the molecule was in the tissue sample. As such, bulk-analysis techniques provide no information about spatial location of biological molecules in tissue samples. This is in contrast to spatial analysis methods such as those claimed in the ’468 patent which can determine both if a biological molecule was present in a tissue sample and where the molecule was in the tissue sample. Id. at ¶¶ 16–17. Although we recognize that Cantor discloses “providing the beads according to an (X,Y) array” (Pet. 25–26, 32–33 (citing to Dr. Puglisi, Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 133, 135, respectively), this disclosure makes no mention of using this array to map where the nucleic acids of Cantor came from relative to the original sample, let alone when that original sample is a tissue. See e.g. Ex. 1031, 17. The only mention of “tissue” made in Cantor is in reference to where the sample may be obtained, for example, “[t]he biological sample can be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue.” Id. at 6. Cantor provides no teaching, however, regarding how to use a tissue sample with the probes and methods described in Cantor to identify where the target nucleic acids of Cantor were spatially located within the tissue section itself. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 142, 143 (Dr. Cantor testifying that (1) “a POSA would only be able to determine where on the array a target nucleic acid was captured, but not where in the original tissue section the nucleic acid came from,” because “all information about the spatial location of a target nucleic acid in a tissue sample is lost when the nucleic acid sample is prepared as Cantor teaches”; and (2) “Cantor [] does not teach or suggest contacting its solid supports (e.g. beads) with a tissue section and certainly not with its beads at known locations to obtain spatial information.”).” slip op. at 23
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,662,468 - Globus Medical, Inc. v. Spinelogik, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00226 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5, 7, and 9 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Moskowitz and Steffee render at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and “the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which that subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness when presented. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In analyzing the obviousness of a combination of prior art elements, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of skill in the art “to combine . . . known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of a challenged claim is not necessary to establish obviousness. Id. Rather, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. Accordingly, a party who petitions the Board for a determination of unpatentability based on obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See 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 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“according to what Petitioner purports to be Patent Owner’s “apparent construction” is relevant to only Petitioner’s challenge based on Moskowitz and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (Ground 1). Here, Petitioner acknowledges that “even if a ‘curved’ channel has a narrower meaning requiring the channel to follow a curved path (instead of the straight path identified in the accused products), Petitioner demonstrates that the challenged claims are also unpatentable over at least Grounds 2 and 3.” Pet. 24–25. For purposes of this decision, we find Petitioner’s alternative construction to be consistent with the ’385 patent’s disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:49–53 (“The anchoring member is advanced through the curved fusion member channel and into the vertebral body. As the fusion member channel is curved, the path that the anchoring member travels is also curved.”). We also find it to be consistent with the construction Petitioner advances in the related litigation. See Ex. 1029, 1 (Petitioner preliminarily construing “curved channel” to mean “channel that has a curved path”). However, because construing “curved,” as it appears in the term “curved channel,” is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner has made a sufficient showing to support institution, we determine that an express interpretation of this term is not needed at this stage of the proceeding. 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)). On this limited record, and at this early stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination on the construction of “curved,” as it appears in the term “curved channel.” The parties should consider developing this issue further during trial.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“a) Motivation to Combine Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to use Steffee’s curved anchors with Moskowitz’s screw box to minimize potential migration of the screw box after implantation.” Pet. 84 (citing id. at 88–90). According to Petitioner, “Steffee taught that forces tending to cause sagittal or lateral movement of the fastener (and thereby migration of the implant) can be minimized or eliminated by using a curved fastener that increases the entry angle of the fastener to near-perpendicular.” Id. at 88. Thus, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to use Steffee’s curved anchors with Moskowitz’s screw box to lower the forces (acting through Moskowitz’s existing screws) that tended to cause migration of fusion implants.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 169). Petitioner also points out that “Moskowitz’s anchors are threaded screws” (Pet. 89 (citing id. at 30–48)), and Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such screws could strip (e.g., due to misalignment or over-torquing), which would reduce the stability of engagement between the fusion member and vertebrae. Ex. 1002 ¶ 170. Because the fasteners in Steffee do not contain threads, and further contained barbs to prevent the fastener from backing out (Ex. 1005, 2:61–68), a POSA would have understood that such fasteners would not be subject to such stripping. Ex. 1002 ¶ 170. Therefore, a POSA would have been motivated to use similar curved fasteners having barbs to eliminate the risk of stripping inherent when using Moskowitz’s screws. Id. Pet. 89. In addition, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “had a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because it would only require the use of known machining techniques, and because the use of both curved anchors and curved channels had already been shown successful in spinal implants.” Id. at 84. Petitioner provides several reasons to support its contention. See id. at 90–91.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,460,385 - Globus Medical, Inc. v. Spinelogik, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00225 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–6, 11, 12, and 15–17 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Blain anticipates or renders at least one claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“1. Anticipation A prior art reference can only anticipate a claim if it discloses all the claimed limitations “arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.” Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). “However, a reference can anticipate a claim” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Alternatively, to the extent Blain may not disclose that its instrument guide 14 “extend[s] outside a patient’s body to a medical practitioner,” Petitioner argues that it would have “been obvious based on common sense and the general knowledge of POSAs to make the length of the shaft of instrument guide 14 sufficiently long so that the physician would not have to stick his or her hand inside the incision location to insert the implant between the vertebrae.” Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 123). According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such a configuration to “provid[e] the known benefit of allowing the physician to maneuver and manipulate the delivery tool without having to insert his or her hand into the patient’s body to deliver and position the implant.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 124). And, relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Culbert, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the instrument guide 14 such that its handle 20 and shaft 22 extends outside the patient’s body, as this involved nothing more than lengthening the proximal shaft 22A and/or distal shaft 22B.” Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 126); see also Ex. 1004, 5:4–6; Ex. 1005 ¶ 21 (Blain disclosing that “the relative lengths between the proximal shaft 22A and the distal shaft 22B can vary”).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage of the proceeding, however, we determine that no terms require explicit construction to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record to reach a decision on institution. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,730,805 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00282 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 7–9 are unpatentable as obvious, principally over Edwards-’535 and Stern for claims 1–3 and 7–9, and Makower, Edwards-’535, and Stern for claims 1, 2, and 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 27–28 (identifying evidence that clinical experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and therefore be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner’s definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See PO Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, after reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Regardless, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer opinions under either definition. Moreover, the parties do not argue that their respective position would be different under either POSITA definition. See PO Resp. 8 (Patent Owner arguing that the challenges fail “[r]egardless of how a POSITA is defined”); Ex. 1083 ¶ 88 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Accordingly, all of the findings and conclusions herein would be the same under either side’s definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that the part of claim 1’s preamble “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting. Pet. 18. According to Petitioner, the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete apparatus, and the preamble only states an intended use for the device without limiting the claimed structure. Id. at 18–19. Patent Owner neither addresses this issue, nor proposes any other claim construction. PO Resp. 13 (“Patent Owner believes that no claim constructions are required to resolve the issues raised [in this IPR].”). On this record, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive and determine that the part of claim 1’s preamble “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“techniques of delivering bipolar RF ablation energy through expandable devices to the mucosal tissue of different body cavities.” Id. at 39. According to Petitioner, “combining Edwards-’535 and Stern involves applying Stern’s known bipolar pairing technique to Edwards-’535’s known device that was ready for improvement (because Edwards-’535 omits electrode wiring details) to yield predictable results.” Id. Thus, Petitioner concludes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success when modifying Edwards-’535 in view of Stern. Id. at 38–40. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s mapping for claim limitations 1[a]-1[c] and 1[f] above, nor does Patent Owner challenge Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Edwards-’535 with Stern. See PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner, however, argues that Petitioner has failed to show Stern teaches limitations 1[d] and 1[e] “because Stern teaches a device comprising only a single pair of bipolar radiofrequency electrodes and a single radiofrequency output channel.” Id. We find that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Edwards-’535 and Stern and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so for the reasons set forth in the Petition. We also find that the articulated combination of Edwards-’535 and Stern teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed analysis of claim limitations 1[a]-1[c] and [f] and reasoning for combining the references, and credit its supporting evidence. See Pet. 26–33, 43–46; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84–102, 159–165. Below we address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed limitations 1[d] and 1[e].” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“In our view, nothing is missing. Stern teaches that the circuitry in Figure 15 is configured to form multiple pairs of bipolar RF electrodes. Ex. 1033, 12:61–13:2 (explaining “[a]s an example” the closing of certain switches in Figure 15 to activate a bipolar pair between electrodes 220 and 224 and a second bipolar pair between electrodes 222 and 226 and further noting that “[c]learly bipolar operation is not limited to these . . . pair couplings” because other switches could be operated to activate a bipolar pair between electrodes 220 and 222); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–111, 135–138. Indeed, Stern consistently uses the word “pairs,” i.e., the plural not the singular, to describe the bipolar operation of its device. See, e.g., Ex. 1033, 2:36–40, 3:38–40, 12:20–25, 12:29–30, 13:27–44, 20:9–10 (describing the bipolar operation of “pairs” nine times). Accordingly, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Stern teaches a device configured to have at most only a single pair of bipolar RF electrodes. Second, Stern teaches that the “embodiment of FIG. 15 . . . provides flexibility within the bipolar operation so that any pair or any combination of pairs may be utilized together.” Ex. 1033, 13:39–43 (emphasis added). Thus, even if claim 1 did require simultaneous activation of multiple bipolar pairs, we agree with Petitioner that such functionality is also taught by Stern. See Reply 5–6.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,766,286 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,766,286 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00278 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15–17 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner disputes the second part of Petitioner’s definition “because the ‘and/or’ encompasses within the definition . . . persons who only have experience with the clinical use or testing of medical devices.” Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill “would have had more experience than just clinically using medical devices or simply conducting tests with medical devices” Id. at 6–7. To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 33–34 (identifying evidence that clinical experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and therefore be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner’s definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, we apply Petitioner’s definition. Regardless, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer the opinions in his declarations under either definition. Moreover, Patent Owner does not identify any testimony it contends would be different under its POSITA definition. See Ex. 1083 ¶ 103 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Accordingly, all of the findings and conclusions herein would be the same under either side’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Neither side proposes any terms for express construction. Petitioner contends “the Board need not construe any terms because the Challenged Claims are invalid under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 20. “Patent Owner believes that no claim constructions are required to resolve the issues raised” in this IPR. Resp. 13. Nevertheless, in their arguments over whether the prior art teaches certain claim elements, each side accuses the other of misinterpreting or reading requirements beyond their ordinary meaning into those terms. See Reply 3–10 (urging that Patent Owner’s arguments read requirements into elements 1[d] and 1[e]); Sur-Reply 9–15 (arguing Petitioner applies an incorrect definition of “radio frequency output channel”). To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context they are raised in our analysis below. No further express claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Edwards-535 and Stern, and had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so for the reasons set forth in the Petition. We also find that the articulated combination of Edwards-535 and Stern teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed analysis of claim elements 1[a]-[c] and [f] and reasoning for combining the references, and credit its supporting evidence. See Pet. 7–14, 17–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–103, 113–21. Below we address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed elements 1[d] and 1[e].” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has the more persuasive position and has demonstrated that Stern teaches element 1[e]. Petitioner demonstrates Stern’s multiple RF output channels with the annotated version of Figure 15 shown below. Pet. 42–43. As shown by Petitioner’s annotations above, the channel (highlighted in orange) connecting the output received from voltage source 228 to the first bipolar pair (circled in green on the left) is distinct from the channel connecting the output to the second bipolar electrode pair (circled in purple on the right) because depending on which switches are closed, energy travels through a separate connection between those switches and the corresponding electrodes. We agree with Petitioner, and credit Dr. Martin’s testimony, that each of the output channels highlighted in orange in Stern’s Figure 15 above “are output channels as required by the claims because the channels are separately/individually connected to the electrodes” and “control individual pairs of bipolar RF electrodes.” Id. at 43–44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 124–128; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 45 (“an ‘output channel’ connects electrodes and provides the ability to independently control pairs of electrodes”). This understanding of the term “output channel” is consistent with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “multiple radiofrequency output channels” wherein “each pair” of bipolar RF electrodes “is connected with a respective one of the multiple radio frequency output channels.” Ex. 1001, 52:27–33. The RF generator itself and its connection to the output channels is not recited in claim 1. Instead, the claim language focuses on the connection between the electrode pair and its respective output channel. The description in the specification also focuses on the connection to the electrodes and further explains that having a “separate, controlled electrical channel” for “each pair of electrodes” allows for “different regions of the treatment element to be activated separately.” Ex. 1001, 24:45–52, 48:63–65; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 33 (“[e]very time the patent mentions ‘electrical channel’ or ‘output channel,’ it is referring to connections to electrodes”). This aligns with the depiction of the output channels in the ’318 patent’s figures. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 39–44 (showing RF output channel 961 connected to electrodes). Petitioner demonstrates this in the annotated version of Figure 39 shown below. Reply 8.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 11,033,318 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,033,318 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00277 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–12, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over the Edwards-535, Kong, and Stern combinations, with Edwards-886 added for claim 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 29–31 (identifying evidence that clinical use and testing experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 5, 14–15 (explaining that clinicians who use such devices gain extensive experience regarding how they work); see also Ex. 1084, 82:13–83:20 (Dr. Bikson testifying that a physician would perform the claimed method steps). Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, we apply Petitioner’s definition. Regardless, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer the opinions in his declarations under either definition and Patent Owner does not identify any testimony it contends would be different under its POSITA definition. See Ex. 1097 ¶ 49 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Moreover, as explained below, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s challenge to Dr. DelGaudio’s qualifications and give his testimony appropriate weight in our analysis. For these reasons, our findings and conclusions would be the same under either side’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Third, nothing suggests that Dr. DelGaudio is not qualified to offer opinions regarding the knowledge and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, to his relevant clinical experience, Dr. DelGaudio has experience designing different types of medical devices and consulting with device manufacturers to provide feedback and improve devices used in nasal surgery. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 9–11. Thus, even if we had adopted a POSITA definition requiring design and development experience, Dr. DelGaudio would qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art because he has such experience in addition to his extensive clinical background. Id. Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues he is “not an individual capable of designing and developing the medical device used in the claimed method” because “Dr. DelGaudio has no experience in designing medical devices that deliver energy to tissue.” Sur-reply 22–24 (emphasis added). That argument is unavailing because such devices and methods of using them such as those recited in the claims of the ’271 patent are often developed by a team of individuals with different backgrounds and expertise. That Dr. DelGaudio working alone may not be capable of designing and developing such a device does not disqualify him from offering testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly as it relates to those claim elements that recite the use of the device as opposed to its technical details.8 Moreover, Dr. DelGaudio was careful not to overstep the bounds of his expertise, relying on testimony from Dr. Martin to confirm his understanding concerning some of the engineering details of the devices themselves. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 124, 127, 130, 151; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 12 (explaining he relied on Dr. Martin to confirm his understanding of teachings in Stern that disclose “implementation details about circuitry used to operate the bipolar electrodes, the physics of delivering energy to tissue, among other things”); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 66–131 (Dr. Martin testifying regarding a POSITA’s understanding of the prior art as it relates to such elements). Fourth, even if Dr. DelGaudio did not himself qualify as one of ordinary skill, we could still consider his testimony on those matters on which he was qualified. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 52, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents /tpgnov.pdf (“CTPG”) (“A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’”) (citing cases). We agree with Petitioner that this would include matters such as the use of the devices described in the cited references in a clinical setting. See Reply 28. 8 Indeed, by its logic, Patent Owner’s own expert would not be one of ordinary skill in the art because he is not himself capable of practicing the claimed method. See Ex. 1084, 24:13–22, 82:19–83:8 (testifying he has never used an RF device to treat a patient and would not himself perform the recited method).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner’s position is persuasive. Even without taking into account the reasoning based on Baker (which we address separately below), Petitioner has demonstrated a sufficient rationale for incorporating Stern’s arrangement of two rows of bipolar electrode pairs into Edwards-535’s device. Edwards-535 teaches that a plurality of electrodes may be positioned on the surface of its treatment element, but does not specify how those electrodes are arranged or controlled. Ex. 1010, 8:25–27; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 68–69. Stern teaches a control system for selectively delivering power to bipolar electrode pairs arranged in two rows on the surface of its device that provides even heating and precise control. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 80–85. As Dr. DelGaudio explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded these attributes to be particularly beneficial when delivering treatment to the “nasal passages . . . given the uneven morphology of nasal cavity tissue and the proximity of the RF energy delivery to a patient’s brain and other critical tissues within the head.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 94. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Stern’s teachings, including the complementary two-row surface electrode arrangement shown in Figure 19, for these reasons. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–94; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 72–73, 75–88, 96–97 (explaining that Stern’s techniques would have been used to improve Edwards-535’s device in a similar way). Petitioner’s reasoning that “arranging electrodes in rows . . . facilitates simple spatial resolution of the applied energy” is also persuasive. See Pet. 47–48. As Dr. Martin explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that arranging bipolar electrodes in two or more rows was a “common way to arrange such electrodes” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 34) and a “simple way to direct energy to specific locations for treatment would have been to place pairs of electrodes in rows . . . along the device at the locations being treated.” Id. ¶ 95.” slip op. at 41
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s position is persuasive. Stern’s Figure 15 shows bipolar electrodes 220 and 224 in a first horizontal row and electrodes 222 and 226 in a second horizontal row. Stern teaches that bipolar pairs can be formed between various combination of these electrodes resulting in both pairs within a row and pairs formed across two rows. See Ex. 1033, 12:61–13:2 (explaining that “bipolar operation is not limited to [electrode] 220-224 and 222-226 pair couplings” because pairs could also be formed across rows, e.g., between electrodes 220 and 222). Stern’s Figure 19 likewise depicts a plurality of electrodes arranged in two rows. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71–74 (Dr. Martin explaining that the physical arrangement in Figure 19 is complementary to the control structure in Figure 15 and that there are two rows regardless of which electrodes are paired). In bipolar operation, each of these figures depicts “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” as recited in element 1[a] because there are two rows comprising multiple pairs.15 Patent Owner’s narrower interpretation of the phrase “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” is not consistent with the intrinsic record. According to Patent Owner and Dr. Bikson, it is not enough that there are two rows of electrodes comprising multiple pairs––rather each row must itself contain multiple pairs. See Resp. 23; Ex. 2001 ¶ 75 (“A row of only two electrodes is not a row of bipolar electrode pairs because a row of only two electrodes has at most a single pair (not multiple pairs).”). As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s interpretation assumes that the “s” in “pairs” modifies each row individually, rather than the recited “rows” collectively. But the claim 15 In reply to Patent Owner’s argument that there must be at least three electrodes in a row for that row to contain multiple pairs, Petitioner shows that Stern also discloses rows with three or more electrodes. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 36– 40; Ex. 1097 ¶¶ 39–41 (identifying rows with three or more electrodes in Stern’s Figures 4a and 19). We need not address that showing in detail because, as explained below, element 1[a] does not require that there be more than one pair in each row. language does not specify that each row has pairs (plural). Rather, given its plain meaning, “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” encompasses an arrangement like that shown in Stern’s Figure 15. Ex. 1097 ¶ 30 (Dr. Martin explaining that “what is required is (1) more than one bipolar electrode pair that are (2) spread across rows”). This broader understanding is confirmed by the specification of the” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 11,241,271 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,241,271 - 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 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00381 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kubota would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute inter partes 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. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes 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 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“But that the Specification may indicate that a “loader support” and a “mainframe” may have some similar functionality does not make the terms interchangeable from a claim construction perspective. See Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Texas Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”) (citing CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”)). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s view that intrinsic and extrinsic evidence regarding a different term—“mainframe”—supports a similar proposed construction for “loader support.” See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 22–27 (discussing intrinsic and extrinsic evidence relating to “mainframe” and then proposing a definition of “loader support”). Instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “loader support,” which aligns with the view of the Iowa District Court. See Ex. 1020 at 5 (the Iowa District Court stating that “loader support” “will be given [its] plain and ordinary meaning”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action . . . that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). We need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. 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)).” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the claim, and for the reasons below, we determine that the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is both anticipated and would have been obvious based on KR996.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,465,891 - PTAB · Jun 18, 2025 · IPR2025-00289 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 under all four asserted §103 grounds because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- 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 will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. For reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’005 patent’s challenged claims. In a separate decision, the Acting Director denied Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial. Paper 9. We institute inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 362–63 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes 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
“(“POSA”) in August 2018 “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline and 2–4 years of catheter design experience.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). Patent Owner provides no alternative definition of the POSA’s qualifications and, instead, applies Petitioner’s definition in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 26. We apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level for this Decision, which level appears to be reasonable and consistent with the cited prior art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“disclosure about filament features) includes the same disclosures concerning “loop” and “bight” embodiments as in the patent challenged in the 1157 IPR. Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 64–69, Figs. 6–9. And claim 1 of the ’005 patent encompasses, but is not limited to, filaments that form a loop. Thus, similar to our preliminary decision in the 1157 IPR, we decline at this time to construe the filament of claim 1 of the ’005 patent as limited to a “flexible” filament.13” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends a POSA would have been motivated to use Schaffer’s hemostasis valve in Garrison’s aspiration system for several reasons. Pet. 35–37. For example, Petitioner contends that Garrison discloses that adjustable-opening valves may be used, that Schaffer suggests its valve may be used with interventional catheters of the type described in Garrison, and that a skilled artisan would have recognized that Schaffer’s valve, with its features biasing the valve to a closed position, could simplify operation of Garrison’s system by avoiding a need to manually close/seal the valve during procedures. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–99). We find that Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the cited teachings in the references and the testimony of Mr. Thornton. Petitioner’s evidence is sufficient at this stage and we determine that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that at least claim 1 would have been obvious over Garrison and Schaffer. Below we explain why Patent Owner’s counterargument does not undermine Petitioner’s showing on this record.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,554,005 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00144 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–20 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION The Petition fails to show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Accordingly, we deny the Petition. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“claim 15). We agree that the Specification supports Patent Owner’s construction. Although Petitioner bases its construction on extrinsic evidence, Petitioner argues that its construction “is consistent with” the intrinsic evidence, which, according to Petitioner, “indicates a sole is optional.” Pet. 31. A sole is optional, Petitioner argues, because the Abstract of the ’511 patent states that “[t]he footwear may include an upper and a sole structure.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1001, Abstr. (Petitioner’s emphasis)). We are not persuaded. Petitioner reads too much into the sentence it quotes from the Abstract and its use of the word “may.” Indeed, by Petitioner’s logic, both the upper and the sole structure would be optional and footwear would lack any required structure. Petitioner also argues that “[o]ther intrinsic evidence” supports its construction. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1053, 4:55–58; Ex. 1002 ¶92). The alleged intrinsic evidence, however, is an unrelated patent, US 2,675,631, which purportedly was cited during the prosecution of the ’511 patent. Id. This argument is undeveloped by Petitioner. First, Petitioner fails to substantiate that US 2,675,631 is cited in the prosecution history, merely asserting it as fact without pointing to supporting evidence. See id. (no citation to the prosecution history provided). Further, even assuming US 2,675,631 is cited in the prosecution history of the ’511 patent and thus part of the intrinsic evidence,8 Petitioner fails to show that it is probative of 8 The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he prosecution history, which we have designated as part of the ‘intrinsic evidence,’ consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (emphasis added). what the inventors of the ’511 patent meant by “article of footwear.” Petitioner points out that the inventor of US 2,675,631 considers “knitted footwear” as encompassing “hose, golf hose, three-quarter hose, half-hose and socks” but does not explain why such meaning should be incorporated into the ’511 patent. Ex. 1053, 4:55–58 (partly quoted at Pet. 31–32). US 2,675,631 is titled “Footwear Article of The Slipper-Sock Type.” Ex. 1053, Title. As is evidently clear from the specifications of both patents, the ’511 patent and US 2,675,631 are directed to different types of footwear within the broader (dictionary) definition cited by Petitioner. Ex. 1022, 67, 88. Patent Owner also proffers testimony from Dr. Pastore that a person” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We construe the preambles of claims 1 and 15 to be limiting, as guided by case law. It is clear that the preambles are being used to help define the invention, i.e., an upper for an article of footwear in the case of claim 1 and an article of footwear having an upper in the case of claim 15. See Bell Communications Research Inc. v. Vitalink Commcations Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it. In other words, when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some other, is the 9 Claim 15 is similar to claim 1, and, in challenging claim 1, Petitioner merely refers back to and relies exclusively on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 84 (Ground 1), 124–125 (Ground 2). Thus, although we may we discuss claim 1 alone at times, our analysis applies equally to claim 15. one the patent protects.”). Moreover, the bodies of both claims recite “the upper” which, in the case of claim 1, derives its antecedent basis directly from the preamble and, in the case of claim 15, relies on the preamble’s article of footwear which is recited as comprising an upper. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, it is not enough that Clark discloses a sole. See KSR Int'l, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). Petitioner must show that it would have been obvious to modify Cusinato to include a sole. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). On this aspect, Petitioner fails. The Petition summarily states that “a POSITA would consider it obvious to add a sole to Cusinato’s ‘boot-like’ form” but – as noted by Patent Owner – the Petition does not explain why. Pet. 51; see Prelim. Resp. 35 (“The Petition is silent with respect to any alleged motivation.”). Dr. Adanur’s testimony does not add much. He summarily opines that “it would be obvious to add a sole to Cusinato’s ‘boot-like’ form to provide cushioning and protection.” Ex. 1002 ¶160.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,918,511
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.