- Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 1, 2022 · IPR2021-00846 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Swinger, Weikert, and Benedikt (claims 1–8), and with L’Esperance added (claims 9–12).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties present compelling evidence that those of skill in the art would include individuals with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 25; PO Resp. 8. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such experience. Rather, teams of individuals with design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. Accordingly, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as optical engineering, with experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., Ph.D. or five or more years to compensate for lesser degrees). Such individuals would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner provides constructions for the terms “cataract incision” and “a delivery system for delivering the laser beam to the target tissue to form a cataract incision.” Pet. 7–9. Patent Owner provides a construction for the term “cataract incision.” PO Resp. 10–11. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, including the fact that neither party disputes that Weikert expressly discloses cataract incisions under either parties’ interpretation of that term, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“A petition must “identify with particularity the grounds for institution and evidence supporting such grounds,” including “the prior art relied upon and evidence that it qualifies as such.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)). The Petition identifies the grounds for institution and the evidence supporting such grounds, and presents evidence that Weikert qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 5–6, 27–28. For example, Petitioner and Dr. Lubatschowski assert that CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY “is a quarterly review series comprising chapters written by well-known specialists,” and that Weikert was included in the 2005 edition of CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY as Chapter 14: Refractive Keratotomy: Does it Have a Future Role in Refractive Surgery? Ex. 1001 ¶ 73; Pet. 5–6, 27–28.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Benedikt describes its combined topometer/OCT imaging device as providing a “previously unattainable comprehensive topometerical/topographical illustration of the cornea” and discloses using this comprehensive data to automate corneal laser surgery. Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 39, 46; Pet. 55–56. In contrast to the comprehensive illustration of the cornea provided by Benedikt’s system, Petitioner demonstrates that HeNe beams are limited to visualizing the surface of eye tissue at a single point. Ex. 1070 ¶¶ 32–34; Pet. Reply 23; Ex. 1073, 254:2–14; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 29–31. As Petitioner proposes to use the system of Swinger to make incisions in the cornea, which Benedikt’s system can image comprehensively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to implement Benedikt’s imaging device to aid Swinger’s corneal surgery procedure(s). (2)” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,376,356 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,376,356 - Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 27, 2022 · IPR2021-00840 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 2, 8–16, and 22–35 not unpatentable because the proposed combinations failed to establish the claimed control system and reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’732 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. 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)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, 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) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party seeks an express interpretation of any claim language. Pet. 7–8; see generally Resp. Therefore, we need not and do not expressly construe any claim language here. However, in our analysis below, as required for the sake of clarity, to resolve ambiguity, and for consistency with our decisions in the related proceedings addressing similar claim language and similar prior art, we address the claim language and its meaning as argued by the parties. We do so in accordance with the above-noted standards of law. C. slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Id. at 1367. The evidence of record suggests that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention based solely on Swinger’s, Baikoff’s, and Li’s teachings. Further, as our reviewing court has explained, “references to ‘common sense’—” or an ordinarily skilled artisan’s ordinary creativity, “whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” DSS Tech. Mgm’t, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 855 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Although here Petitioner has not wholly omitted any reasoned analysis or evidence regarding the claimed computer control system programmed to automatically plan a cutting region based on image data and then perform that planned laser-cutting of the lens capsule (and, for some claims, also the lens), this subject matter is not disclosed in any cited art and we find Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning as to why it would have been obvious without such disclosure to be largely conclusory and unpersuasive. slip op. at 44
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “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 ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be merely incorporated-by-reference in the Petition (Petitioner does not even do so much). 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 58
Patent outcomesUS 9,107,732 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,107,732 - PTAB · Sep 14, 2022 · IPR2022-00673 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 under § 103 based on WO684 and NO366, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“prior situations, how the New Hampshire District Court would rule should a stay be requested in the New Hampshire litigation. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative) (“A judge determines whether to grant a stay based on the facts of each specific case as presented in the briefs by the parties. We decline to infer, based on actions taken in different cases with different facts, how the District Court would rule should a stay be requested by the parties in the parallel case here.”). We view this factor as neutral because neither of the parties in the New Hampshire litigation has requested a stay thus far. See id. at 12 (determining that Factor 1 is neutral when neither party has requested a stay and the issue has not been ruled on by the district court).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We agree with Patent Owner that both WO684 and NO366 were at least considered by the Examiner, even if the Examiner never discussed the references or relied on them in any manner. See Ex. 1001, code (56) (listing both WO684 and NO366 among the references cited). Under these circumstances, we find the first part of the Advanced Bionics satisfied because the prior art before the Examiner and the prior art relied on in the Petition include the same prior art references.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelOther
“person having ordinary skill in the art “has a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering or Robotics and at least three to four years of experience working as an engineer in the field of AS/RS [Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems].” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). Petitioner argues in the alternative that one of ordinary skill in the art “has at least a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, and at least four to five years of experience working as an engineer in the field of AS/RS.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). Patent Owner argues that “the level of ordinary skill in the art is ‘at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and at least two to three years’ experience working in the field of the design of robotic vehicles for material handling system[s].” Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 50). Patent Owner contends that the parties agreed that this level of skill applies to WO684 in a related ITC proceeding, and should be adopted here. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 2007, 19–20). We note that the parties’ respective proposals overlap considerably, with Petitioner’s alternative proposal nearly identical to Patent Owner’s proposal. We need not resolve which proposal most closely aligns with the level of ordinary skill in the art here, however, because even if we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal we would come to the same ultimate conclusion that Petitioner satisfies its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose any constructions for any claim terms, and “Patent Owner also believes no claim term requires construction and submits that the Petition is defective under any reasonable claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 30. Based on our review of the current record, we need not formally construe any claim terms to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,961,051 - Axalta Coating Systems, LLC v. PPG Industries Ohio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00676 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–19 obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the reasonable likelihood standard is not met. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“would have had “at least a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in the field of polymer chemistry, polymer coatings, materials science and/or a related field and at least two years of practical experience in the development of coating systems for consumer products.” Pet. 11. For purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSA. Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSA, which is consistent with the scope and content of the ’505 Patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We do not need to resolve any claim construction disputes for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently that a POSA looking to improve a three-layer coating for automobiles as disclosed in Kasari or Hall would have looked to Kondo, which teaches laminated glass for windshields. Although Petitioner asserts that “[Kasari] and Kondo each teach multi-layer systems with a transparent colored middle layer that can be used in the automobile industry” (Pet. 20) and makes a similar assertion about Hall and Kondo (Pet. 48), such high-level similarity is not a sufficient obviousness rationale. See Securus Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp., 701 F. App’x 971, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“We agree with the Board that a broad characterization of [asserted references] as both falling within the same alleged field . . . without more, is not enough for [petitioner] to meet its burden of presenting a sufficient rationale to support an obviousness conclusion.”). Petitioner fails to show that Kondo’s interlayer for bonding two glass plates is sufficiently relevant to the intermediate coating layer of Kasari or Hall that a POSA would have applied Kondo’s teachings to the organic pigments that may be used in the intermediate coating layer. Kondo teaches a glass-bonding interlayer containing ultra-fine inorganic particles for providing colorlessness or a color tone, heat insulation, and ultraviolet ray insulation, without adversely affecting the bond strength of the interlayer or the haze, radio transmittance, transparency, and durability of the glass laminate. Ex. 1006, 2:25–31, 2:39–47, 3:2–9. In contrast, Kasari and Hall both teach an intermediate coating layer that may contain an organic or inorganic pigment. Ex. 1009, 9:50–64; Ex. 1010 ¶ 32. Petitioner does not provide a sufficient reason why a POSA would consider Kondo’s teaching about ultra-fine inorganic particles for providing colorlessness or a color tone, heat insulation, and ultraviolet ray insulation in a glass-bonding layer, when selecting organic pigments for use in the intermediate coating layer of Kasari or Hall. Petitioner also does not explain why a POSA would rely on the particle size of Kondo’s particles in isolation from Kondo’s teaching of inorganic pigments as the ultra-fine particles. See In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,981,505 - TCT Mobile (US), Inc. / TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00599 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Morita and the knowledge of a skilled artisan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Baker testifies that “[b]ecause the SE1 signal differentiates between PS/2 and USB interfaces, the SE1 signal in Casebolt . . . identifies a power source type.” Ex. 1026 ¶ 16. Dr. Baker relies on the undisputed facts that “the PS/2 interface provides a maximum current of 275 mA” and “according to the USB specification, a high-power function can draw up to 500 mA, while a low-power function may draw only up to 100mA.” Id. As discussed above, although Dr. Fernald testifies that Casebolt uses SE1 to distinguish between PS/2 and USB and that PS/2 and USB have different current limits, he offers no explanation for his conclusion that Casebolt does not suggest use of SE1 to identify a power source type. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 67. We credit Dr. Baker’s testimony over that of Dr. Fernald on this point because it is consistent with the evidence that USB and PS/2 have different current limits. Consequently, we find that Casebolt shows using an SE1 signal to identify a power source type was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 35
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeOther
“III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibit 2030. Paper 28, 1. Petitioner contends Patent Owner filed Exhibit 2030 with its Sur-reply in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), which prohibits the filing of new evidence other than deposition transcripts with the Sur-reply. Id. at 1–2. We do not rely on Exhibit 2030 in this Decision. Consequently, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Patent Owner also submits “the preambles for claims 1 and 8 are limiting because they provide antecedent basis to ‘the mobile device’ in the rest of the claims and further limit the claimed ‘mobile device’ to one ‘configurable for use in a wireless telecommunications network.’” 7 Dr. Baker applies this construction in his Reply Declaration. See, e.g., Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 11–12. PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:49–50, 12:30–32). We need not reach the question of whether the preamble is limiting because, as explained below in our analysis of claim 1, there is no dispute that Morita discloses the subject matter of the preambles of claims 1 and 8. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 over Morita and/or the” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,834,586 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,834,586 - PTAB · Jun 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00100 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 8–10 and 15–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would have been obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Typically, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent,” but “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” CTPG 59. We agree that the claims challenged by these two petitions differ significantly. For example, as Petitioner notes:” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows 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 of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A claim is unpatentable as obvious if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). We resolve the question of obviousness based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] . . . would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design, or a related field. . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 12. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In inter partes review, we construe claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). The parties do not propose any constructions. Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 12. Based on our review of the preliminary record, we determine that no terms require construction at this stage. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,750,583 - PTAB · Jun 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00052 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all asserted grounds for claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show them unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the remaining challenged claims— claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23 of the ’251 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to these claims on all grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Typically, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent,” but “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” CTPG 59. For example, more than one petition may be necessary “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. Given the priority date dispute addressed only in the -00051 Petition, and in light of Patent Owner’s decision not to challenge Petitioner’s filing of parallel petitions, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny either petition. See CTPG 61 (“The Board will consider the parties’ submissions in determining whether to exercise its discretion to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party asserts that any claim terms of the ’251 patent require construction. Pet. 6–7; Prelim. Resp. 13. And, upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms require construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“In view of the foregoing, and after reviewing the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Birrell and Schultz teach or suggest “at least one LED circuit having a plurality of LEDs . . . wherein the at least one LED circuit is mounted on a reflective substrate,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’251 patent. Petitioner also provides a sufficient rationale, supported by record evidence, explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Birrell and Schultz. b) Reasonable Expectation of Success Patent Owner contends the Petition does not support institution because incorporating Schultz’s flexible, multilayer optical film in Birrell would present substantial challenges “for reconciling the build characteristics of the multi-layer rigid frame construction of Birrell with the flexible construction of Schultz.” Prelim. Resp. 22. And, given the differences in construction between the two lighting devices, Patent Owner contends the combination of Schultz’s reflective surface materials with Birrell’s circuit board 58 is not a “predictable use of known lighting design techniques and components according to their established functions,” as asserted by Petitioner. Id. at 21–22. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner does not contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Schultz’s specific reflective material in Birrell. Rather, Petitioner argues that the use of reflective substrates to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art and, given Schultz’s disclosure of the benefits of such a reflective coating, one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to apply a reflective coating in Birrell. Pet. 13–16. In addition, Dr. Baker, citing to multiple disclosures in the prior art, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success in implementing a reflective substrate in Birrell. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–85. Patent Owner’s bare attorney argument is not sufficient to call this testimony into question at this stage of the proceeding. c) Conclusion with Respect to Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,492,251 - PTAB · Jun 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00051 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1 and 6 over all asserted grounds because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Birrell and Schultz and over Piepgras.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“At bottom,” the two-part framework utilized for 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) “reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. The art in the -01369 IPR has not yet been fully considered. There has been no definitive determination in that proceeding as to the scope of the prior art nor any definitive determination as to whether the submitted evidence is sufficient to show that any claims of the ’251 patent would have been obvious. As such, there is no reference point to determine whether the Office erred; there has simply been no definitive determination to analyze or reconsider. Accordingly, the framework described in Advanced Bionics is not yet applicable and does not support discretionary denial.6 Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) on these facts. slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“6 When different petitioners challenge the same patent, discretionary denial may be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), upon evaluation of the non-exhaustive factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, at 15–16 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential). See Valve Corp. v. Elecs. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019- 00062, Paper 11, at 2, 9 (April 2, 2019) (applying the General Plastic factors to a second petition filed by a different party). Application of the General Plastic factors, however, requires analysis of, among other things, any relationship between the different petitioners and the timing of the second petition with respect to Patent Owner’s preliminary response and the Board’s institution decision in the first proceeding. Id. at 9, 12. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence demonstrating that these factors counsel in favor of discretionary denial in this case, and Petitioner presents evidence that they do not. Pet. 81–84 (Petitioner asserting that it has no “significant relationship” with the petitioner in the -01369 IPR and that no preliminary response had been filed in the -01369 IPR when the Petition was filed). Accordingly, we do not consider discretionary denial under § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party asserts that any claim terms of the ’251 patent require construction. Pet. 21–22; Prelim. Resp. 13. And, upon review of the 6 When different petitioners challenge the same patent, discretionary denial may be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), upon evaluation of the non-exhaustive factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, at 15–16 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential). See Valve Corp. v. Elecs. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019- 00062, Paper 11, at 2, 9 (April 2, 2019) (applying the General Plastic factors to a second petition filed by a different party). Application of the General Plastic factors, however, requires analysis of, among other things, any relationship between the different petitioners and the timing of the second petition with respect to Patent Owner’s preliminary response and the Board’s institution decision in the first proceeding. Id. at 9, 12. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence demonstrating that these factors counsel in favor of discretionary denial in this case, and Petitioner presents evidence that they do not. Pet. 81–84 (Petitioner asserting that it has no “significant relationship” with the petitioner in the -01369 IPR and that no preliminary response had been filed in the -01369 IPR when the Petition was filed). Accordingly, we do not consider discretionary denial under § 314(a). parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms require construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply a reflective coating, such as that disclosed in Shultz, to Birrell’s circuit board, and would have sought to do so because such coatings were well known in the art and it was understood that a reflective coating would improve the illumination provided by an LED lighting system. Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1002 ¶ 105. Petitioner’s arguments and rationale for the proposed combination are clear and supported by evidence of record. Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 47–49; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18, 6:48–7:34; Ex. 1022, Abstract, ¶¶ 18, 34, 81). Accordingly, Petitioner sufficiently explains for purposes of institution why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the disclosures of Birrell and Schultz to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,492,251 - Rimfrost As v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AsNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01534 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the petitioner did not establish that Bottino II taught the claimed free fatty acid limit.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To prove collateral estoppel, a party must show the following: (1) that in the prior action the party against whom estoppel is sought had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue: (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the controlling facts and applicable legal rules were the same in both actions; (4) resolution of the particular issue was essential to the final judgment in the first action; and (5) the identical issue was decided in the first action. See Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan Corp., 49 F.3d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). In considering collateral estoppel of adjudicated patent claims, the patent claims do not have to be identical; rather, “it is the identity of the issues that were litigated that determines whether collateral estoppel should apply.” Ohio Willow Wood, 735 F.3d at 1342. Here, Petitioner provides us with an overview of the similarity of the art used in the previous cases before us involving related patents to the ’567 patent and a general overview of the various components of allegedly “virtually identical krill oil compositions” without addressing a comparison of specific unpatentable claims of these related patents as compared to the specific claims at issue here. See Pet. 42–44. Notably, this overview of similar components of claimed krill oil compositions in the related patents does not address free fatty acids that are at the center of the dispute in this case. Id. Most notably, Petitioner fails to address the five criteria that we have listed above to establish that collateral estoppel applies in this case. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that this is a fatal flaw. Nowhere in the Petition does Petitioner provide an analysis of a previous Board decision where the issue of whether Bottino II teaches an extract with less than 3% free fatty acids w/w of said krill oil (an issue central to resolution of the case here) was litigated, resolved by the Board, and essential to the judgment in that previous case. See Pet. 42–44. Therefore, Petitioner cannot show that the identical issue was decided in any previous case before us. Petitioner’s discussion of the similarity of art previously applied and a generalized overview of different components of various challenged claims of related patents is insufficient. Because Petitioner failed to apply the correct framework, we find that collateral estoppel does not preclude Patent Owner from addressing the issues raised in this inter partes review.” slip op. at 16
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner makes arguments for the first time at oral hearing concerning our alleged previous reliance on Table 2 of Bottino II in finding claims of related patents unpatentable and provides new evidence of Patent Owner’s alleged failure to challenge the reliability of Table 2 of Bottino II. See Tr. 8:7–9:3; Petitioner’s Demonstratives, slide 8. We find that these belated arguments and evidence are inappropriately raised for the first time at oral argument, and we need not consider them. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019) (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Jaczynski, accepted Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, see Ex. 2001 ¶ 8, and further commented that “[t]he relevant field for the ’567 patent includes extraction of lipids from natural sources,” see id. ¶ 7. Dr. Jaczynski further stated that he considers himself to be an expert in the relevant field. Id. We find that Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the asserted prior art references, and apply it for purposes of this decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). We also find that both Dr. Tallon and Dr. Jaczynski are qualified to opine about how one of skill in the art would view the teachings of the asserted combinations of art in Petitioner’s challenges to the claims. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7–21, Appendix D (Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Tallon); Ex. 2002, Appendix A (Curriculum Vitae of Dr.Jaczynski).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“At this final stage of the proceeding, we again determine that no construction of any claim term for which Petitioner has proposed a 13 Petitioner points out that Dr. Tallon testified that his constructions would be the same under the Phillips standard. Reply 6, n.2 (citing Ex. 1086 ¶ 6). definition is necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties here as the limitation upon which we resolve this case does not involve these claim terms.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,010,567 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,010,567 - Rimfrost As v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 6, 2022 · IPR2020-01532 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art, because the combined teachings establish every limitation and a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Collateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the context of patent claims, collateral estoppel applies “[i]f the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity.” Id. Petitioner points to no prior decision of the Board where the issue of whether it would have been obvious to denature a krill product and then store it for 1 to 24 months before extraction was at issue. Moreover, to demonstrate that the added limitation would have been obvious, Petitioner relies heavily on the disclosures of Budziński, which was not at issue or analyzed in the prior proceedings. Pet. 45; PO Resp. 13 (asserting that the prior art in the previous proceedings “did not include Budziński”). Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that collateral estoppel applies in this proceeding. slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Jaczynski dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2015 ¶ 8 (“For purposes of this proceeding, I will accept [Petitioner’s] definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].”). Upon review of the ’169 patent and the prior art of record, we find Petitioner’s uncontested definition reasonable and supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, we adopt this definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“oil,” “denature lipases and phospholipases,” “polar solvent,” “astaxanthin esters,” “krill meal,” and “freshly harvested.” Pet. 32–39. With respect to “krill meal,” Petitioner contends this term should be construed to mean “processed krill with reduced water content from which krill oil can be extracted.” Id. at 38. Patent Owner provides proposed constructions for the terms “krill meal” and “denature lipases and phospholipases.” PO Resp. 7–12. With respect to “krill meal,” Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s proposed construction of “krill meal” is overbroad and ignores the ordinary and customary meaning of a meal, which is a “powder formed by particle size reduction of a starting material.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 14–16). Thus, Patent Owner construes “krill meal” to mean “a krill powder resulting from the processing of krill.” Id. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that no terms of the ’169 patent require construction in order to resolve the disputes in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“As noted by Patent Owner, the evidence of record suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that krill processing—both denaturation and krill oil extraction—could be successfully performed on board a ship. Ex. 1037, 3–4; Ex. 2019, 49:18–25 (Dr. Tallon testifying 12 Because Patent Owner relies on various disclosures of Breivik II as potentially counselling against combining the references to arrive at the claimed subject matter, we will consider these teachings in our Decision. We do not, however, consider Breivik II or Petitioner’s arguments with respect to this reference in determining whether the prior art teaches or suggests every limitation of the challenged claims. during cross-examination that flammable solvents can be successfully managed on a ship). At the same time, Petitioner and Dr. Tallon explain that the dangers of using flammable solvents on a vessel are still a relevant consideration. Ex. 1086 ¶¶ 97–99; Ex. 2019, 49:18–25 (Tallon Deposition). Moreover, Dr. Tallon also persuasively identifies several other benefits of land-based krill oil extraction, such as the reduced costs of outfitting each ship with its own processing equipment (which is often essentially identical to that used on land), the ability to extract krill oil to meet specific demand in the market, and cheaper access to fuel. Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 173, 443); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (noting that market forces and design needs can provide the reason to combine or modify prior art references). Patent Owner presents no argument or evidence to refute these additional benefits of land-based extractions, other than to note that Dr. Tallon does not cite any specific documents to support his assertions. PO Resp. 45 (Patent Owner noting the testimony of Dr. Tallon). Upon review of the evidence of record, we credit the testimony of Dr. Tallon that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in addition to avoiding the need to manage the use of flammable solvents at sea, there were a number of other benefits to land-based extractions of krill oil that would have motivated a skilled artisan to store the denatured krill products for between 1 and 24 months, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,644,169 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,644,169
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.