• Arun Agarwal v. Sachin JhunjhunwalaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2021 · PGR2021-00071 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–2 because the Petition did not identify its grounds and supporting evidence with the required particularity.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b). Our reviewing court, in the context of inter partes review, describes this particularity requirement as “of the utmost importance.” Intelligent Bio- Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Further, our rules require that each petition include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2).” slip op. at 13

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,782
• Neosales Corp LP v. Allan WendlingInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00058 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable on the asserted obviousness or written-description grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324. The standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) requires Petitioner to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged patent claim is unpatentable. Petitioner has not met that standard and, accordingly, we do not institute a post grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a High School Diploma with 5 years of experience in the flooring industry” and that they “would also understand that there is a requirement that many accessible surfaces must be slip resistant to minimize hazards to users of the surface.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–26). On this record, for purposes of this decision, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least the qualifications set forth in Patent Owner and appears, on this record, to be consistent with the disclosures of the ’285 patent and the asserted prior art references. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim construction is not necessary when it is not “directed to, or has been shown reasonably to affect, the determination of obviousness”). accordance with their ordinary meaning except for “laminate structure” and “laminated.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–41). As to these terms, the Petition relies on a quotation, describing what is shown in Figure 3, that includes the term “laminate structure” from the ’285 patent.5 Id. at 15 (“As best shown in FIG. 3, the body is a laminate structure and comprises a bottom elastomeric layer 24 of an elastomeric material . . . floor surface 26.”); Ex. 1001, 2:16–20, Fig. 3. Petitioner also relies on Merriam- Webster’s definition of “laminate” as ‘a product made by laminating,’” where “laminating” means “to unite (layers of material) by an adhesive or other means.” Pet. 15 (quoting Ex. 1013) (citing Ex. 1011 [sic] Ex. 1013). Petitioner contends that “the term ‘laminate structure’ should be construed to mean a ‘body having an adhered elastomeric material’” and that “the term ‘laminated’ should be construed as ‘adhered.’” Id. On this record, and for purposes of this decision, we decline to construe any claim terms beyond the limited extent we do so below in our analysis, because it is not necessary to do so in reaching our decision on institution.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On this record, Petitioner fails to establish a basis for the recited “sticky polyurethane gel layer.” Although it is evident that Haas’ “bonding layer 2” can itself be formed of an adhesive material (see, e.g., Ex. 1009, 5:48–50), it can also be formed of material that is not adhesive (or sticky) (see, e.g., id. at 5:61–63). Petitioner offers no support for Haas’ polyurethane foam layer itself being an adhesive or sticky material. Pet. 21– 24. Further, the disclosure relating to Haas’ polyurethane layer is contrary to the polyurethane being an adhesive or sticky material because Haas teaches applying an adhesive to the polyurethane layer. See, e.g., Ex. 1009, 8:36–38, 11:32–12:43 (Examples I–IV). Likewise, Petitioner offers no support for the polyurethane foam being a polyurethane gel. See, e.g., Pet. 21–24. Petitioner rather merely asserts that its “augmented carpet-to-floor contact system would produce the same effect claimed by a ‘sticky [bonding] polyurethane gel [foam] layer,’” which falls short of establishing that the polyurethane foam meets the limitation requiring gel. Pet. 24. The Phillips Declaration essentially repeats arguments set forth in the Petition, including as to the “sticky polyurethane gel layer that includes a Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–67, with Pet. 20–24. The cited testimony, thus, lacks the necessary objective evidence to support the opinions expressed as to Haas teaching or suggesting a “sticky polyurethane gel layer.” See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,806,285
• Intel Corporation v. Tela Innovations, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01637 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 15, 18, 20, and 22–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Becker and Greenway; the claims are not entitled to the earlier priority dates.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–11, 15, 18, 20, and 22–24 of the ’335 patent on the ground of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 16 (“Dec.”). After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response. Paper 28 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 35 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 38 (“Sur- Reply”). An oral hearing was held on December 9, 2020, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 45 (“Tr.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because the levels of skill set forth by both Petitioner and Patent Owner are based on a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a length and type of experience that overlap. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, which overlaps that set forth by Petitioner, particularly regarding a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, with five years of experience in semiconductor layout technology and integrated circuit design, and because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 12

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

    “AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner notes that there are disputed claim terms in the NDCA Action—namely, the terms “gate electrode,” “gate structure(s),” and “contact structure(s)”—but asserts that Becker and Greenway render the challenged claims obvious under any of the proposed constructions. Pet. 31–32. In light of this, Petitioner states that the Board does not need to construe any claim term in order to evaluate the asserted prior art. Id. Patent Owner provides the district court’s construction of the claim terms “gate electrode,” “gate structure(s),” and “contact structure(s)” in the NDCA Action, stating that Patent Owner “applies the District Court constructions” of these claim terms. PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner, however, does not expressly argue for those constructions, and states that “Petitioner’s obviousness arguments fail regardless of whether any of the above claims constructions are adopted by the Board.” Id. at 22. On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly to resolve the parties’ dispute. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Application and 2007 Original Application, Patent Owner does not disagree that the smallest gate pitch mentioned therein is 360nm (0.36 μm). Ex. 1005, 8, 9 11; Ex. 1007, 30–31; Pet. 20; PO Resp. passim. Petitioner has reasonably established that the claimed range of less than or equal to about 193nm would extend, at its lower bound, to the single-digit nanometer range. Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 1061, 329:10–21). The disclosures relied on by Patent Owner in the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application do not support the entire range of gate pitches from 193nm down to the lower bound of the single-digit nanometer range. Pet. 15, 19; compare Ex. 1005, 8, 11 (teaching a gate pitch of 360nm), Ex. 1007, 30–31 (teaching a gate pitch of 360nm) with Ex. 1008, 21–24 (requiring a gate pitch of less than or equal to about 193nm). This does not show possession of the entire range down to the single-digit nanometer range. See Lukach, 442 F.2d at 969. Regarding feature size, the smallest actual feature size mentioned in the 2006 Provisional Application and 2007 Original Application is 65nm. Ex. 1005, 5 (“65nm sized features”); Ex. 1007, 10 (“65 nm sized features”). Figure 1 of the 2006 Provisional Application, titled “Lithography Trends,” emphasizes that Patent Owner did not have possession of smaller gate pitches or feature sizes at the time of that application, but rather, that a 45nm feature size would be expected to be achieved in about 2012. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1; see Lukach, 442 F.2d at 969. We find that the disclosures of the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application do not show possession of the 45nm feature size. Looking next at Patent Owner’s “scalability” theory, we do not agree that the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application would inform one of ordinary skill in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed 193nm gate pitch ranges or 45nm feature sizes, or anything smaller, at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or the 2007 Original Application. In order for Patent Owner to prevail on its argument that the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application support the disclosure of a sub-193nm gate pitch range or 45nm features, the disclosures of those applications must convey with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the inventors possessed the invention claimed in the 2015 Application. See Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1351. We do not agree that the aspirational language in the 2006 Provisional Application demonstrates that the inventors had possession of the claimed range of gate pitches from 193nm down to the single-digit nanometer range, or possession of 45nm-sized features. Rather, the language of the 2006 Provisional Application describes a layout methodology, but fails to expressly teach scaling down to the gate pitches specified in the 2015 Application or explain to one of ordinary skill in the art how to do so. Even though “scaling” is a mathematical possibility, as argued by Patent Owner, that possibility does not equate to possession of the scaled-down structure itself. At the time of the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application, feature sizes were only “approaching” 45nm (Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1007, 3) or “expected to soon approach sizes as small as 45 nm” (Ex. 1007, 10). This language is, in effect, an acknowledgment that 45nm feature sizes were not yet a reality. Further, nothing in the 2006 Provisional Application shows how to make a 45nm feature, or how one of ordinary skill in the art could have made this happen in the 2006/2007 time frame. Similarly, Dr. Khatri’s scaling formula based on “simple geometry” that Patent Owner proposes to apply to the gate pitches and feature sizes identified in the 2006 Provisional Application is not found in that application. See generally Ex. 1005. The application’s use of “Moore’s Law as a crystal ball to predict future reductions in chip dimensions is not the same as inventing a chip with reduced chip dimensions, including reduced gate pitches down to unfathomable single-digit nanometer pitches.” Reply 6. The evidence demonstrates that scaling down feature sizes and gate pitches is not a simple function of time or a mere application of Moore’s Law, but the result of technological innovation that was not in the possession of the inventors at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application. See Ex. 1061, 341:2–9; Ex. 1077, 1283:21–1284:3 (ITC hearing transcript). Thus, we do not agree that, by virtue of Patent Owner’s proposed “scalability” theory, the inventors conveyed with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the inventors possessed the invention claimed in the 2015 Application at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,141,335 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,141,335
• Intel Corporation v. Tela Innovations, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01636 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 15, 18, 20, and 22–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Becker and Greenway because Petitioner proved the combination by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Application and 2007 Original Application, Patent Owner does not disagree that the smallest gate pitch mentioned therein is 360nm (0.36 μm). Ex. 1005, 8, 11; Ex. 1007, 30–31; Pet. 20; PO Resp. passim. Petitioner has reasonably established that the claimed range of less than or equal to about 193nm would extend, at its lower bound, to the single-digit nanometer range. Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 1061, 329:10–21). The disclosures relied on by Patent Owner in the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application do not support the entire range of gate pitches from 193nm down to the lower bound of the single-digit nanometer range. Pet. 15, 19; compare Ex. 1005, 8, 11 (teaching a gate pitch of 360nm), Ex. 1007, 30–31 (teaching a gate pitch of 360nm) with Ex. 1008, 22–23 (requiring a gate pitch of less than or equal to about 193nm). This does not show possession of the entire range down to the single-digit nanometer range. See Lukach, 442 F.2d at 969. Regarding feature size, the smallest actual feature size mentioned in the 2006 Provisional Application and 2007 Original Application is 65nm. Ex. 1005, 5 (“65nm sized features”); Ex. 1007, 10 (“65 nm sized features”). Figure 1 of the 2006 Provisional Application, titled “Lithography Trends,” emphasizes that Patent Owner did not have possession of smaller gate pitches or feature sizes at the time of that application, but rather, that a 45nm feature size would be expected to be achieved in about 2012. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1; see Lukach, 442 F.2d at 969. We find that the disclosures of the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application do not show possession of the 45nm feature size. Looking next at Patent Owner’s “scalability” theory, we do not agree that the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application would inform one of ordinary skill in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed 193nm gate pitch ranges or 45nm feature sizes, or anything smaller, at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or the 2007 Original Application. In order for Patent Owner to prevail on its argument that the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application support the disclosure of a sub-193nm gate pitch range or 45nm features, the disclosures of those applications must convey with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the inventors possessed the invention claimed in the 2015 Application. See Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1351. We do not agree that the aspirational language in the 2006 Provisional Application demonstrates that the inventors had possession of the claimed range of gate pitches from 193nm down to the single-digit nanometer range, or possession of 45nm-sized features. Rather, the language of the 2006 Provisional Application describes a layout methodology, but fails to expressly teach scaling down to the gate pitches specified in the 2015 Application or explain to one of ordinary skill in the art how to do so. Even though “scaling” is a mathematical possibility, as argued by Patent Owner, that possibility does not equate to possession of the scaled-down structure itself. At the time of the 2006 Provisional Application and the 2007 Original Application, feature sizes were only “approaching” 45nm (Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1007, 3) or “expected to soon approach sizes as small as 45 nm” (Ex. 1007, 10). This language is, in effect, an acknowledgment that 45nm feature sizes were not yet a reality. Further, nothing in the 2006 Provisional Application shows how to make a 45nm feature, or how one of ordinary skill in the art could have made this happen in the 2006/2007 time frame. Similarly, Dr. Khatri’s scaling formula based on “simple geometry” that Patent Owner proposes to apply to the gate pitches and feature sizes identified in the 2006 Provisional Application is not found in that application. See generally Ex. 1005. The application’s use of “Moore’s Law as a crystal ball to predict future reductions in chip dimensions is not the same as inventing a chip with reduced chip dimensions, including reduced gate pitches down to unfathomable single-digit nanometer pitches.” Reply 6. The evidence demonstrates that scaling down feature sizes and gate pitches is not a simple function of time or a mere application of Moore’s Law, but the result of technological innovation that was not in the possession of the inventors at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application. See Ex. 1061, 341:2–9; Ex. 1077, 1283:21–1284:3 (ITC hearing transcript). Thus, we do not agree that, by virtue of Patent Owner’s proposed “scalability” theory, the inventors conveyed with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the inventors possessed the invention claimed in the 2015 Application at the time of the 2006 Provisional Application or 2007 Original Application.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because the levels of skill set forth by both Petitioner and Patent Owner are based on a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a length and type of experience that overlap. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, which overlaps that set forth by Petitioner, particularly regarding a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, with five years of experience in semiconductor layout technology and integrated circuit design, and because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 12

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

    “On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly to resolve the parties’ dispute. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Relying on the Shanfield declaration, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Becker and Greenway, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–106). For example, Petitioner argues that Becker and Greenway are closely related, in that they “apply the same 1D gridded layout style to the design of semiconductor chips,” with Greenway going further than Becker and disclosing “fabricating 1D gridded circuits using ‘next generation’ Interference Assisted Lithography (IAL).” Id. at 40. Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to combine Greenway with Becker for the additional reason that Greenway’s Interference Assisted Lithography (IAL) seeks to extend the use of 193nm OPL that underpins Becker, and is touted as being compatible with OPL.” Id. at 41. According to Petitioner, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Becker and Greenway “because the authors of Greenway performed ‘circuit and lithography simulations’ to confirm that ‘the proposed bitcell layouts can be successfully printed with IAL.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–106). We also find that Petitioner’s contended basis for one of ordinary skill in the art combining the teachings in the manner set forth by Petitioner is supported by the evidence of record. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–106.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 10,141,334 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,141,334
• Nanocellect Biomedical, Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2020 · IPR2020-00548 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3, 9, 17, and 18 unpatentable over any asserted §103 ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring inter partes review petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); cf. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (addressing “the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the proposed combinations and/or alterations of the prior art would render them unpatentable as obvious. At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information in the Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations and/or alterations of the prior art. slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in the field of bioengineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or analytical chemistry; or a bachelor’s or master’s degree in a related field and at least three years of experience in designing or developing microfluidic systems.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46–49). Patent Owner reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but applies Petitioner’s proposed definition “[s]olely for purposes of [the Patent Owner Preliminary Response].” Prelim. Resp. 29. On this record, we have no reason to fault Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 6

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

    “For the purposes of this Decision, based on the current record, we determine that the claim term “pressure pulse” means “a transient increase in pressure” because this is the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and is consistent with the use of this term in the ’295 patent. We further note that this determination is consistent with the district court’s determination that the claim term “pressure pulse” has its “plain and ordinary meaning.” Ex. 2012, 5–6. Turning to the claim term “reservoir,” for the purposes of this Decision, based on the current record, we determine that the claim term has its plain and ordinary meaning of “a physical structure that contains fluid,” but decline to reach any determination as to the nature or type of fluid as it is not necessary to resolve the issues here. Wellman, 642 F.3d at 1361. This determination is consistent with the construction adopted by the district court. Ex. 2012, 4–5. As to the recited reservoir being “adapted for dampening or absorbing a pressure pulse” (claim 1), this, and other, limitations are addressed to the limited extent necessary in reaching our Decision that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Wellman, 642 F.3d at 1361.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “reservoir that absorbs or dampens a pressure pulse. The required function of the side microchannels is wholly different, and there is no showing that what is required to absorb or dampen a pressure pulse is included in the disclosed structure for introducing hydrodynamic flow into the central microchannel that cells to be sorted pass through. See generally Pet. Petitioner and Dr. Weigl rely on Wada “describing that the fluid direction components ‘nudge’ materials across the width of the first channel,’” however, that is insufficient to support Petitioner’s contention that “the opposed microchannel structure in each of Figures 22 and 23 is configured to receive . . . and to dampen and absorb the pressure pulse.” Pet. 27–29; Ex. 1002 ¶ 126. On the record before us, thus, we are not persuaded that Wada includes any reservoir adapted for dampening or absorbing a pressure pulse such as recited in the claims. As to Dr. Weigl’s testimony to the contrary, we find it conclusory, largely unsupported as applied to Wada, and entitled to little weight. Dr. Weigl contends that the orientation of opposing microchannels across from one another indicates that one, or both, of them function as a reservoir that is adapted to dampening or absorbing a pressure pulse, and then points to structures in other references that are not shown to be similar or to have the same function as support. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 125– 139. This position is not sufficiently supported, though, particularly where there is insufficient explanation provided as to why what Dr. Weigl contends is disclosed in the further “background references” is what is also present in Wada’s disclosed structure, and what would follow based on its function. See generally Pet.; Ex. 1002. For example, while Dr. Weigl contends that the use of microchannel structure geometry with a channel, chamber or reservoir structure across the source of the transient pressure pulse for dampening or absorbing the transient pressure pulse was well known, and that it was understood that they can be used to mitigate undesirable flow fluctuations (see, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–130), it simply does not follow that a pair of oppositely-oriented microchannels, as disclosed in Wada for providing fluid flow into the main microchannel, have similar structure or that they function in like manner, and Petitioner fails to set forth clearly how the structures are sufficiently similar at a level of detail sufficient to establish like function (see generally Pet.). Similarly, Petitioner’s reliance on the disclosed Joule heating wells in Wada as dampening or absorbing a pressure pulse or fluid (id. at 29–31) fails to establish sufficient basis for including structure that is adapted to dampen or absorb a pressure or fluid (see generally Pet.; Ex. 1002). As discussed above, as to “a first reservoir . . . adapted for dampening or absorbing a pressure pulse propagated across the flow channel,” what Wada discloses falls short, and Petitioner provides no reasonable basis for modifying what is, in fact, disclosed in Wada to arrive at the claimed invention. See generally Pet. Instead, as discussed above, Petitioner merely sets forth what one of ordinary skill in the art could have done. This is not sufficient to reasonably support a ground of obviousness. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Further, “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, absent a sufficient explanation as to why the opposing microchannels in Wada function to dampen or absorb a pressure pulse, or would be adapted to do so, there is an insufficient showing that the ground set forth by Petitioner is not grounded on hindsight reconstruction. See Grain Processing, 840 F.2d at 907.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,623,295
• Nanocellect Biomedical, Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2020 · IPR2020-00550 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 5, 13, 16, 18, or 19 unpatentable over any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). Applying that standard, for the reasons set forth below, we decline to institute an inter partes review because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1, 2, 5, 13, 16, 18, and 19.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we have no reason to fault Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “For the purposes of this Decision, based on the current record, we determine that the claim term “pressure pulse” is “a transient increase in pressure” because this is the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and is consistent with the use of this term in the ’797 patent. We further note that this construction is consistent with the district court’s determination that the claim term “pressure pulse” has its “plain and ordinary meaning.” Ex. 2012, 5–6. We also determine, for the purposes of this Decision and based on the current record, that the claim term “reservoir” has its plain and ordinary meaning of “a physical structure that contains fluid.” We decline to reach any determination as to the nature or type of fluid, however, as it is not necessary to resolve the issues here. Wellman, 642 F.3d at 1361. This determination is consistent with the construction adopted by the district court. Ex. 2012, 4–5. As to the recited reservoir being “adapted for dampening or absorbing a pressure pulse” (claim 1), this and other limitations, are addressed to the limited extent necessary in reaching our Decision that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Wellman, 642 F.3d at 1361.” slip op. at 9

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

    “As discussed above, as to the “first reservoir . . . adapted for dampening or absorbing a pressure pulse propagated across the width of the flow channel” (claim 5) or “dampening or absorbing the pressure pulse using a first reservoir” (claim 1), what Wada discloses falls short, and Petitioner provides no reasonable basis for modifying what is, in fact, disclosed in Wada to arrive at the claimed invention. See generally Pet. Instead, Petitioner merely sets forth what one of ordinary skill in the art could have done. This is not sufficient to reasonably support a ground of obviousness. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Further, “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, absent a sufficient explanation for why the relied on opposing microchannels actually function to dampen or absorb a pressure pulse, or would be adapted to do so, there is an insufficient showing that the ground set forth by Petitioner is not grounded on hindsight reconstruction. See Grain Processing, 840 F.2d at 907.” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,011,797
• Parhelion, Inc. v. Streamlight, Inc.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · Aug 31, 2020 · PGR2020-00062 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · PGR · Adverse judgment

  The Board entered adverse judgment against Streamlight and cancelled all challenged claims, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10–12, 15, 16, 18, 20–24, 26–28, and 31, on the Patent Owner’s request.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Cancellation or disclaimer of one or more claims such that the patent owner has no remaining claim in the trial suffices as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). The Board is permitted to enter adverse judgment at any time in a proceeding, including prior to an institution decision. Cf. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) permits the Board to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue after an IPR petition has been filed, but before an institution decision.”).” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 10,378,702
• IBM Corporation v. Rigetti & Company, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 11, 2020 · IPR2020-00495 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because IBM did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–6, 14–17, 21, 23–26, 29, 31–39, 41, and 43 obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring inter partes review petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); cf. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (addressing “the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the proposed combinations and/or alterations of the prior art would render them unpatentable as obvious. At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information in the Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations and/or alterations of the prior art. slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner expressly “applies Petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” in its Preliminary Response, while “reserv[ing] the right to provide its own definition” later. Prelim. Resp. 22. On this record, we discern no error in the contended level of skill and note that it is not contested at this stage of the proceeding. Accordingly, we apply the identification of a person of ordinary skill as set forth by Petitioner.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are also guided by the principle that we only construe claim terms if, and to the extent, it is necessary for the purpose of the proceeding, here, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 9

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

    “In effect, having failed to establish the necessity of forming interconnections from qubits 116, 126 through wiring layer 134 to planar-tocoaxial transition 150, Petitioner’s identification of modified structures in Schoelkopf that read on claim 1 amounts to little more than an assertion of what one of ordinary skill in the art could make, rather than what one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. This is not sufficient to reasonably support a ground of obviousness. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Further, “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, absent the necessity of using wiring layer 134 to form the relied on interconnection, particularly where substrate 103 is identified as including wiring configured to interconnect different components of the device, there is an insufficient showing that the combination set forth by Petitioner is not improperly grounded on hindsight reconstruction.” slip op. at 32

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,836,699
• IBM Corporation v. Rigetti & Company, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 11, 2020 · IPR2020-00494 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because IBM did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 7–13, 18–20, 22–28, 30, 38, and 40–43 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring inter partes review petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); cf. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (addressing “the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the proposed combinations and/or alterations of the prior art would render them unpatentable as obvious. At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information in the Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations and/or alterations of the prior art. slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of experience working in industry with a focus on quantum computing circuits,” and that a “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 1–22, 37– 41). Patent Owner expressly “applies Petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” in its Preliminary Response, while “reserv[ing] the right to provide its own definition” later. Prelim. Resp. 21. On this record, we discern no error in the contended level of skill and note that it is not contested at this stage of the proceeding. Accordingly, we apply the identification of a person of ordinary skill as set forth by Petitioner.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are also guided by the principle that we only construe claim terms if, and to the extent, it is necessary for the purpose of the proceeding, here, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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)). Petitioner contends that “no claim term requires express construction for the Board to evaluate the patentability of the claims” on the basis of “the prior art assertions presented,” and that, thus, the “Petition analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] in light of the specification.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42). Patent Owner does not set forth an express construction of any claim term, stating that “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, [Patent Owner] analyzes the claim terms consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning,” while also “reserv[ing] the right to proffer its own construction . . . should the need arise.” Prelim. Resp. 21. Based on the current record, we decline to construe any term of the ’699 patent, except to the limited extent set forth in our analysis of the” slip op. at 9

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

    “Reply, the reasoning underlying the grounds is based on the necessity of wiring and vias that are not shown in Figure 1 to establish electrical interconnections between the disclosed qubits formed in substrates 101 and 102 and an interconnection layer in substrate 104, which Petitioner contends is connected to planar-to-coaxial transition 150. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Having relied on Schoelkopf as disclosing an interconnection layer in substrate 104, rather than in substrate 103, on this record, Petitioner fails to meet the burden for instituting an inter partes review. Whether couched in terms of what Petitioner contends Schoelkopf discloses, or what modifications to Schoelkopf would have been necessary for the quantum computing device 100 to function if substrate 104 were made the connectorization/interconnection layer, Petitioner’s failure to account for Schoelkopf’s identification of substrate 103 as the interconnection layer undercuts the sufficiency of the grounds set forth in the Petition. As set forth, the thrust of Petitioner’s grounds relies on wire layers formed on and/or in substrate layer 103 as being disposed between, i.e., intermediate to, the quantum circuit device and the connectorization layer. It is not plainly evident that including additional circuitry on and/or in substrate 103, as set forth in the Petition, locates that circuitry between the quantum circuit device and the connectorization layer if substrate 103 itself is, or includes, the connectorization layer. It further follows that treating a different layer— layer 104—as an interconnection layer for establishing electrical interconnections between qubits 116, 126 and planar-to-coaxial transition 150 requires something more than the relied on necessity for function of allowing communication asserted, particularly where Schoelkopf identifies substrate 104 and substrate 105 in the disclosed supercomputing device as together forming a cavity memory layer. Ex. 1005, 9:5–6, Fig. 1. Petitioner also fails to explain how the structure required for the cavity memory layer would otherwise require structure that includes the necessary interconnections to allow communication from qubits 116, 126 to the transition component 150 through substrate 104, or whether the cavity memory layer would work were the additional structure provided. See generally Pet. In effect, having failed to establish the necessity of forming interconnections from qubits 116, 126 through wiring layer 134 to planar-tocoaxial transition 150, Petitioner’s identification of modified structures in Schoelkopf that read on claim 1 amounts to little more than an assertion of what one of ordinary skill in the art could make, rather than what one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. This is not sufficient to reasonably support a ground of obviousness. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Further, “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, absent the necessity of using wiring layer 134 to form the relied on interconnection, particularly where substrate 103 is identified as including wiring configured to interconnect different components of the device, there is an insufficient showing that the combination set forth by Petitioner is not improperly grounded on hindsight reconstruction.” slip op. at 30

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,836,699
• Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2020 · PGR2019-00027 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Harden combined with one or more of Varenna 2011, Gatti, and Muratore; the written-description challenge was not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. Varenna 2011 teaches that neridronate “seems to possess an excellent efficacy profile” in treating CRPS. Ex. 1006, 233. In the context of reporting the use of “[n]eridronic acid for the treatment of bone metabolic diseases,” Gatti teaches that “[i]ntravenous high doses of bisphosphonates are increasingly used for the treatment of [CRPS].”13 Ex. 1008, 1305, 1308. Gatti also reports that a clinical trial of neridronic acid “is underway.” Id. Muratore teaches that neridronate was “efficacious in the treatment of [CRPS].” Ex. 1007, 89. Thus, on this record, each of these references sufficiently teaches the efficacy of neridronic acid or its salt in treating CRPS, suggesting that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use neridronic acid in treating CRPS. With respect to the limitation of claim 1 requiring that the neridronic acid be “parenterally administer[ed],” each of Varenna 2011, Gatti, and Muratore teaches intravenous administration of neridronic acid. Ex. 1006, 233; Ex. 1007, 89; Ex. 1008, 1308. Intravenous administration is a type of parenteral administration. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. 13 Gatti uses the terms “reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome” and “algodystrophy.” Ex. 1008, 1308. On the present record, we interpret both of these terms as synonymous with “complex regional pain syndrome,” “CRPS,” “complex regional pain syndrome type I,” “CRPS I,” “reflex sympathetic algodystrophy,” “reflex sympathetic dystrophy,” and “causalgia.” Ex. 1006, 227 (equating “algodystrophy,” “complex regional pain syndrome type I,” and “CRPS I”); Ex. 1007, 89 (using the term “reflex sympathetic algodystrophy”); Ex. 1019, 713 (equating “complex regional pain syndrome,” “CRPS,” “reflex sympathetic dystrophy,” and “causalgia”). Harden teaches that the Budapest Criteria are used as “clinical diagnostic criteria for CRPS” and that they include changes in skin blood flow, by reference to the symptoms of “temperature asymmetry” and “skin color asymmetry.” Ex. 1009, 274 (Appendix II). Further, Harden teaches that 69.4% of patients diagnosed with CRPS were observed on examination to exhibit temperature asymmetry, and 83.9% were observed on examination to exhibit skin color asymmetry. Id. at 271 (Table 2). Thus, Harden teaches that a majority of patient with CRPS suffer from changes in skin blood flow. Because Varenna 2011, Gatti, and Muratore teach that neridronic acid is effective in treating CRPS, the combination of any of those references with Harden14 would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that neridronic acid would be effective in alleviating changes in skin blood flow associated with CRPS. Thus, the combination of Harden and one or more of Varenna 2011,” slip op. at 26

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Assuming that “October 2011” is hearsay, it is still admissible evidence under Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Opp. Mot. 3–4 (asserting this hearsay exception). Under Rule 807, a statement “is not excluded,” even if it is hearsay, if it meets two requirements. First, the statement must be “supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness— after considering the totality of circumstances under which it was made and evidence, if any, corroborating the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(1). Second, the statement must be “more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.” Id. at 807(a)(2). Here, both requirements are satisfied. The statement “October 2011” on the face of Varenna 2011 is offered to prove that Varenna 2011 was published in October 2011. This statement is accompanied by several guarantees of trustworthiness. The statements “Received on July 15, 2011” and “Accepted on August 30, 2011,” when offered as corroboration of the October 2011 publication date, are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801 (statement is hearsay only if offered in evidence “to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement”). Accordingly, they may be admitted for this purpose, and they corroborate a publication in October 2011. Moreover, Exhibits 1038 and 1040 also provide some evidence that Varenna 2011 was published in October 2011. Ex. 1038, 1 (article with same title as Varenna 2011 published in “Fascicolo 5 2011”); Ex. 1040, 1 (“Fascicolo 5 2011” published in 2011). Thus, the record contains sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness of Varenna 2011’s statement that Varenna 2011 was published in October 2011. See Opp. Mot. 3 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39–40). We find that Varenna 2011’s statement, indicating that the reference was published in October 2011, is “more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.” Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(2). It is difficult to imagine evidence more probative of the publication date of a journal article than the article’s own contemporaneous statement about when it was published.19 See Opp. Mot. 2–4 (for well-supported arguments on point). Accordingly, we determine that the exception of Rule 807 applies, and we conclude that the statement “October 2011” in Varenna 2011 should not be excluded.” slip op. at 48

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “regardless of whether the preambles are limiting. Even if the preambles are limiting, their scope is so broad as to be hardly different from no limitation at all. The specification of the ’774 patent defines “treating” as “includ[ing] any kind of treatment activity, including the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, or any activity that otherwise affects the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” Ex. 1002, 7:43–47. This definition exhibits “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and is “‘set out . . . within the patent disclosure’ so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, we give effect to this definition of “treating.” Under the definition of “treating” in the specification of the ’774 patent, “[a] method of treating” changes in skin blood flow (claim 1) or abnormal sudomotor activity (claim 16) “associated with complex regional pain syndrome” means a method of diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or preventing that condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome, or otherwise affecting the structure or any function of the body of someone suffering from the condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome. To the extent that this requires carrying out the method on a patient suffering from changes in skin blood flow (claim 1) or abnormal sudomotor activity (claim 16) associated with complex regional pain syndrome, this is already part of the method recited in the body of the claims, Ex. 1002, 90:33–40, 91:14–21, so the preambles provide no additional limitation. To the extent that the preambles require some particular result to be brought about, that result could be the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of the symptom in question, or it could be any effect at all on the structure or any function of the patient’s body. Thus, even when construed as limiting, the preambles provide little, if any, further restriction on the scope of the challenged claims beyond that set forth in the body of the claims.” slip op. at 9

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

    “regardless of whether the preambles are limiting. Even if the preambles are limiting, their scope is so broad as to be hardly different from no limitation at all. The specification of the ’774 patent defines “treating” as “includ[ing] any kind of treatment activity, including the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, or any activity that otherwise affects the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” Ex. 1002, 7:43–47. This definition exhibits “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and is “‘set out . . . within the patent disclosure’ so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, we give effect to this definition of “treating.” Under the definition of “treating” in the specification of the ’774 patent, “[a] method of treating” changes in skin blood flow (claim 1) or abnormal sudomotor activity (claim 16) “associated with complex regional pain syndrome” means a method of diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or preventing that condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome, or otherwise affecting the structure or any function of the body of someone suffering from the condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome. To the extent that this requires carrying out the method on a patient suffering from changes in skin blood flow (claim 1) or abnormal sudomotor activity (claim 16) associated with complex regional pain syndrome, this is already part of the method recited in the body of the claims, Ex. 1002, 90:33–40, 91:14–21, so the preambles provide no additional limitation. To the extent that the preambles require some particular result to be brought about, that result could be the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of the symptom in question, or it could be any effect at all on the structure or any function of the patient’s body. Thus, even when construed as limiting, the preambles provide little, if any, further restriction on the scope of the challenged claims beyond that set forth in the body of the claims. Moreover, as discussed below with respect to the asserted grounds of obviousness, Petitioner directs us to evidence that the prior art teaches or suggests the subject matter of the preambles, even when those preambles are construed as limiting in accordance with the meaning of “treating” provided in the specification.8 Thus, whether or not we treat the preambles as limiting, the outcome does not change. Given this circumstance, we treat the preambles of the challenged claims as limiting and assign them a meaning consistent with the specification’s definition of “treating.”” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 10,039,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,039,774

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.