- PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00986 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 3, 4, and 6 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable over Shin despite concerns about Ground 2.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Pet. 7–8). Petitioner’s definition appears consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art of record. See Pet. 7–8. Thus, we apply that definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes giving each term its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 7. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 10. On the current record, no terms are in controversy, and the Board does not need to construe any term here.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightOther
“We agree that Petitioner’s obviousness rationale appears to be based on the challenged patent’s disclosure—at least in part. See Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:25–50), 61 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:34–40). Dr. Mark P. Mahon’s corresponding testimony relies on the same parts of the challenged patent, adding little additional technical reasoning or support from the prior art of 8 Petitioner cites “Section 5.8a.1.3.”, but the quoted passage appears in Section 5.8.1.3. Pet. 60 (emphasis added). challenged patent itself raises the possibility that Petitioner has succumbed to impermissible hindsight bias. See Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 815 F.3d 1302, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)) (discussing the “the distortion caused by hindsight bias”); see also InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the . . . patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”). Even so, the preliminary record also indicates that it may be inherent in an NB-IoT system that “DCI indicating an SC-MCCH change notification must be transmitted in a different subframe from the DCI indicating a resource for the updated SC-MCCH information.” Pet. 61. This is a factual issue best resolved on a fully developed record.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for patent owner
“We see no basis for using China Standard Time here. “The time and date of receipt of an application filed via EFS-Web is the local time and date in USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 502.05 I.C.2 (9th ed. Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015) (emphasis added).7 The MPEP provides an example of how an application filed from the Pacific Time Zone would receive the filing date as of the USPTO’s local time: For example, if an applicant in California officially files a patent application with the USPTO through EFS-Web by clicking on the SUBMIT button at 10 p.m. Pacific Time in California on May 1, that application would be officially received by the USPTO at 1 a.m., local time (i.e., Eastern Daylight Time) on May 2. Accordingly, the application would receive a filing date of May 2. Id. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Fujishiro is not prior art for this reason. Prelim. Resp. 28–29.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,785,764 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00985 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 8–14 and 16 on all asserted grounds, finding compelling evidence that the challenges could establish unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)InstitutedInstituted
“1–5 weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Fintiv factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of denial, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. On balance, the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of denying institution. Because the Fintiv factors favor denial of institution, we must also determine whether the Petition presents compelling merits. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“In circumstances where . . . the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 1–5 favors denial of institution, the Board shall then assess compelling merits.”).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“or “POSITA”) would have been “familiar with wireless communications networks, equipment, and integrated circuit chips, and would have had at least a working knowledge of communication protocols used in LTE and 5G radio access networks (“RAN”).” Pet. 11–12. According to Petitioner, a POSA would have “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or an equivalent field, and at least two years of work experience in design, development, and/or testing wireless telecommunication systems” as well as “familiarity with the wireless standards and protocols related to data transmission and network management.” Id. at 12. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the POSA. Prelim. Resp. 10 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). Because Petitioner’s description of a POSA appears consistent with the subject matter of the ’566 patent and with the prior art of record and we apply it for purposes of this decision, with the exception of the qualifier “at least” which expand the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We find Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner did not meet its obligation to explain how the claims should be construed unavailing because, on the present record, we do not find a material difference between Petitioner’s assertion in this proceeding that the claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and the claim constructions that Petitioner agreed to in the district court litigation. We do not find it necessary to expressly construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); 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’”). We address whether the Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the cited art meets the limitations at issue infra § III.E.1.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“G. Conclusion on Compelling Merits For the reasons set forth above, we determine that Grounds 1–3 of the Petition present a compelling meritorious challenge. That is, “the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo 4. As the Director explains in OpenSky, however, this finding “should not be taken as a signal to the ultimate conclusion after trial” because “all relevant evidence likely will not have been adduced at the point of institution [and] trial should produce additional evidence that may support a determination in the Final Written Decision that unpatentability has not been adequately proven.” OpenSky, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49– 50. IV. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the accompanying evidence, we find that the Petition presents compelling evidence of the unpatentability of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we grant Petitioners request that we institute inter partes review of claims 8–14 and 16 of the ’566 patent.” slip op. at 25
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,601,566 - PTAB · Dec 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00951 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5 on all petition grounds, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability based on Wang and Yang.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” Institution of an inter partes review is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (authorizing institution of an inter partes review under particular circumstances, but not requiring institution under any circumstances).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. On balance, we conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Following CommScope, where, as here, our analysis of the first five Fintiv factors favors denial of institution, we address the merits of the Petition to determine whether, on this preliminary record, the merits are compelling. CommScope Technologies LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4–5; Guidance Memo 3–5.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“In addition, Petitioner asserts that, to the extent Wang does not disclose limitation 3.3, it would have been obvious over Wang and the POSA’s knowledge of the art. According to Petitioner, and Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Mahon, it was “well known . . . that TBs could be . . . subdivided in CBs or CBGs and that UEs could transmit HARQ-ACK bits on either a TB or CBG basis to improve the efficiency of the system and potentially prevent the need for retransmission of an entire TB whenever a NACK signal is received.” Pet. 33–34; Ex. 1003 ¶ 281. Petitioner asserts that it was also known that it was desirable to transmit one HARQ-ACK per TB in some instances and one HARQ-ACK bit per CBG in other instances. Id. Petitioner explains that there are a limited number of ways to “distinguish between one HARQ-ACK transmission method and another,” and therefore the POSA would “immediately recognize that one such distinguishing characteristic to devise such a system around is search space configuration, such that one HARQ-ACK bit is transmitted per TB in one search space configuration (e.g., CSS), while one HARQ-ACK bit is transmitted per CBG in another search space configuration.” Id.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,531,443 - Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00874 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show Bansal's claimed light intensity arrangement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An obviousness determination requires finding both ‘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.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Obviousness grounds must be supported with “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” and not by “mere conclusory statements.” See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S at 418. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown for institution that Bansal teaches or suggests arranging light sources “such that a higher intensity of light is emitted proximate the second edges compared to the intensity of light emitted not proximate the second edges,” as required by the challenged claims. Instead, Petitioner demonstrates how Bansal describes varying the density of light source distribution throughout the array to provide a higher density of light in the entire peripheral area of the array, which includes the areas proximal to both the first and second edges, as compared to the central area of the array. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1005 ¶ 25. In this regard, Petitioner relies on Bansal’s Figure 9b, asserting that it “shows one embodiment where more light sources are placed near the edges of the panel compared to the light sources in the center.” Pet. 36–37. The comparison of Bansal’s light density between the entire periphery and the central area of the array is insufficient. What is missing from Petitioner’s argument and discussion of Bansal is how Bansal teaches or suggests a configuration that provides a higher density of light proximate to the second shorter edges of the periphery in comparison to the remaining areas of the array, which includes the first longer edges of the periphery. Without that discussion, we find that Petitioner has not shown sufficient for institution that Bansal is persuasively relied upon for the light source arrangement limitation of the challenged claims. likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claims 1, 5, 16, 20, or 21, or dependent claims 2, 4, 6–8, and 17–19 over Larsen, Bansal, and Jones.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelOther
“would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, physics, biomedical engineering, computer engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one year of work or research experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, photodynamic diagnosis (PD), photodynamic therapy (PDT), phototherapy (PT), or a related field. Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that, alternatively, a “POSITA in the relevant time frame would have had at least four years of industry or academic experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, PD, PDT, PT, or a related field.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’028 patent was filed, “would have had a M.D. and/or a Ph.D. in an electrical engineering, physics, optical sciences, optical engineering, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one to two years of work or research experience in optical engineering, optics, optoelectronics, phototherapy (‘PT’), PDT, or a related field.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner asserts that, “[a]lternatively, a POSITA could have a Bachelor’s degree in one of the above areas and at least three to four years of work or research experience in that area.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–31). We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. To the extent that the proposed definitions differ, we do not need to resolve those differences as our findings and conclusion in this Decision would be the same under any of the proposed definitions.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,028 - PTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00886 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 9–16 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and neither obviousness challenge presented compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“When determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution in view of a parallel proceeding, we consider the following factors: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating these factors, we “take[] a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“or Ingale in view of Jung. Pet. 18–51. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner’s showing does not rise to the level of “compelling merits” according to the Office’s current guidance and Board precedents. CommScope at 3–4 (quoting Guidance Memo, 4) (“[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges ‘in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.”); OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49–50 (PTAB only ‘plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable’ . . . if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim”). 1. Petitioner’s Showing for Claim 9 Below we provide an element-by-element analysis of Petitioner’s obviousness showing for claim 9. After considering the evidence supporting Petitioner’s obviousness showing, and Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence as to why Petitioners’ obviousness showing is deficient, we consider whether the totality of the evidence rises to the level of compelling merits.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“For the reasons set forth above, and even if we consider Petitioner’s proposed rationale for combining Ingale and Jung to be supported by sufficient rational underpinnings (see e.g., Pet. 24–27), neither Jung nor Ingale, either individually or in the proposed combination set forth by Petitioner teach or suggest limitation 9.6 of claim 9 so as to rise to a compelling, meritorious showing for claim 9. 4. Remaining Claims Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for independent claim 13 (Pet. 58–59) and dependent claims 10–12 and 14–16 (id. at 51–57, 59–60) are substantially similar to Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for claim 9 and are unopposed at this stage by Patent Owner (except for the issues discussed above with respect to independent claim 9) (see e.g., Prelim. Resp. 15). Accordingly, Petitioner’s showing for claims 10–16 do not differ or deviate from the showing with respect to independent claim 9 so as to rise to the level of a compelling, meritorious showing, either for independent claim 9, or any of claims 10–16.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the POSA. Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). Petitioner’s description of a POSITA appears consistent with the subject matter of the ’557 patent and with the prior art of record, we apply it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,019,557 - PTAB · Nov 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00834 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“anticipated by Sonti. Pet. 3. To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims to find anticipation. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In evaluating anticipation, it is permissible to take into account not only the literal teachings of the prior art reference, but also the inferences the skilled artisan would draw from it. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. At Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the “dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference”). As such, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“b. Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to topically administer 1% tapinarof composition once a day to treat mild to severe plaque psoriasis in view of Sonti’s teaching to apply its compositions (including 1% tapinarof compositions) in various application frequencies (including once daily) to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Pet. 29–30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184, 187–188; Ex. 1005 Abstract, ¶¶ 55, 196, 288, 387).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsInstituted
“d. Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Patent Owner asserts that, although the “Petition notes the patent’s ‘surprising[] and unexpected[]’ finding that once daily application of 1% tapinarof cream was just effective as twice daily application, . . . the Petition does not analyze, as the law requires, this surprising, unexpected finding in its obviousness arguments.” Prelim. Resp. 52. We are not persuaded by this argument. Immediately after the Petition’s acknowledgement that “[t]he specification [of the ’088 patent] contends that it was ‘surprisingly’ found that once daily application was just as effective as twice daily,” the Petition notes that, “[h]owever, during prosecution the examiner cited a set of prior art by Chen et al. disclosing treating plaque psoriasis by topically applying a composition containing 1% tapinarof once a day.” Pet. 1 (footnote omitted). Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner counters “Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” by referring to the Chen references cited during prosecution, but asserts that “Chen . . . does not undermine Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” because “Chen discloses applying a composition containing 1% mixture of cis and trans 3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropylstilbene, and not one containing 1% tapinarof (3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropyl-trans-stilbene).” Prelim. Resp. 52–53.16 As 16 Patent Owner refers to its earlier discussion on this issue. Prelim. Resp. 53 (“As already discussed . . .”). That earlier discussion is with respect to the Chen references cited in Sonti (i.e., Exs. 1012 & 1013), not the Chen 40” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,590,088 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01035 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–6, 8–10, and 22–28, and denied substitute claims 29–44 because Wright ’451 rendered them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 16). Patent Owner took no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. Inst. 6–7. In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that it accepts the Board’s definition for purposes of this proceeding. MTA 24. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears to be consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level 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
“Although neither party expressly proposes a construction for the term “conversion,” the parties appear to differ in their interpretations of that term. Petitioner interprets “conversion” to mean the percent conversion of the 1- alcohol. See Pet. Opp. RMTA 6–7 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of remaining 1-alcohol); Ex. 1040, 109:2–11. Patent Owner, on the other hand, interprets “conversion” to mean the total percentage of alkenes that have been produced. Ex. 2010 ¶ 123 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of total alkenes). During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner conceded that “conversion can mean either.” Tr. 27:18–28:13. Without the benefit of briefing by the parties, we decline to expressly construe the term “conversion,” as our Decision would be the same under either interpretation, as discussed further below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Moreover, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said claimed invention pertains. See also 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 skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Objective evidence of nonobviousness may include” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded. “[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must, therefore, first consider what results were expected to determine what a POSA would have considered to be unexpected. Id. As seen by the table below, Wright ’451’s disclosure fully encompasses the temperature ranges and purported unexpected results recited by substitute claim 29 and shown in Table 2 of the ’048 Patent: Reference Reaction Calcination Conversion Regioselectivity Rate13 Temperature Temperature Wright ’451 about 220 °C about 200 °C greater than about 90% to to about to 600 °C about 95% about 99% 440 °C Substitute 240 °C to about 420 °C at least 95% to about Claim 29” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,995,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,995,048 - Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00456 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed claims 1–9, 15–22, and 24–27.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Rule 42.73(b) permits a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and states that “disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” will be construed as a request for adverse judgment. Under these circumstances, we grant Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment. ORDER It is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for adverse judgment (Paper 28) is GRANTED, and FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1–9, 15–22, and 24–27 of the ’888 patent.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,612,888 - Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 3, 2024 · IPR2024-00424 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of the challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the lower-ranked petition did not justify a second set of petitions.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“large number of claims alone is not sufficient to justify the filing of the second set of petitions when the first set already covers all 152 claims of the ʼ260 patent. We therefore turn to Petitioner’s reasons for why it filed the second set of petitions. In this regard, Petitioner identifies three primary “[m]aterial differences between the petition pairs.” Paper 3, 2–5. The first is that the second set of petitions relies on a different set of references, based on Madhavan, rather than Baig. Id. at 2. The second material difference relates to possible priority date issues, and the third relates to possible claim construction issues. Id. We determine that none of these “material differences” are sufficient to justify filing the second set of petitions, including this petition. See November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) 59, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“[O]ne petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. . . . In addition, multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases. . . . The Board finds it unlikely that circumstances will arise where three or more petitions by a petitioner with respect to a particular patent will be appropriate.”).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“IPR2024-00421 and IPR2024-00422, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review in this proceeding. IV. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied and inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’260 patent is not instituted.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,861,260
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.