- PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00263 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR for claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims would be unpatentable over Haley and Lai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION We have determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on each asserted ground. PGS Geophysical, 891 F.3d at 1360 (A decision to institute is a “yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.”).” slip op. at 42
- BurdenInstituted
“limitations of clauses 1.3 and 1.4, but concedes that Haley does not disclose that its driver member has “at least one longitudinal edge with a plurality of spaced-apart protrusions,” as required by clause 1.4. Petitioner further asserts, however, that it would have been obvious “to replace Haley’s hydraulic lifter with the claimed ‘lifter,’ disclosed by [Lai]”. Pet. 13. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). Dr. Vallee’s cited Declaration testimony provides his opinion on this issue, which is consistent with Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner also asserts that “Lai discloses an electrically-powered, mechanical lifting mechanism with a structure that is essentially identical to the ‘lifter member’ disclosed in the ’776 patent. Pet. 13. Petitioner provides side-by-side colored figures from the ’776 patent and from Lai, reproduced below, to illustrate its argument. Pet. 14. According to Petitioner, the side-by-side comparison of Petitioner’s colored versions of Fig. 12, from the ’776 patent, with Petitioner’s colored versions of Figs. 4 A–D, reproduced above, illustrate why and how the proposed modification would have been obvious. As described by Petitioner, the “lifter member” of the ’776 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow), with pins 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:30–46, 16:34–48, Fig. 12). Petitioner also cites the “two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480” shown in Figs. 31, 33 of the ’776 patent. Id. Petitioner also asserts that, as shown in the side-by-side comparison” slip op. at 33
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts the term “lifter member” in the claims of the ’776 patent is “a means-plus-function term” because the claims “lack any ‘recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof’ for the ‘lifter’ element.” Pet. 7 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)). Petitioner also asserts “[t]he Federal Circuit held that the term ‘lifter member’ in the related patents is a means-plus-function term subject to §112(f).” Pet. 7. Petitioner cites no authority for this assertion. We understand this assertion to refer to the decision in Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022), identified by Petitioner as a related matter. Pet. 2. In this case, which involved patents from the same family as the ’776 patent (see Section I.C of this Decision), the Federal Circuit concluded that “§ 112 ¶ 6 applies to the ‘lifter member’ limitation, and it must be construed to cover only ‘the structure, materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and equivalents thereof.’” Id. at 22 F.4th 1379–1381. “Where multiple patents derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner: fails to comply with the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) to specifically identify the structure in the specification associated with that element. As ‘lifter’ is present in every challenged claim under all four grounds, Petitioner’s failure to provide a claim construction for ‘lifter’ is fatal to its Petition. Prelim. Resp. 13. We disagree. First, the claims in the ’776 patent do not use the single word “lifter” alone. The term used in some of the claims, see, e.g., independent claims 1 and 17, and the claims dependent from claims 1 or 17, is “lifter member.” We recognize that the written description in the ’776 patent states “the rotary-to-lifter 100 is also sometimes referred to herein as a ‘lifter member,’ or simply as a ‘lifter.’” Ex. 1001, 9:5–7. This suggests that that term “lifter” is intended to mean the “lifter member,” which makes the use of either term a distinction without a substantive difference. Moreover, neither independent claims 9 or 24, nor the claims dependent from claims 9 and 24, use the word “lifter” or “lifter member. Second, as stated in Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply, the Petition “identifies the portions of the specification that describe the corresponding structure for the ‘lifter’ when comparing its structure to that of the Lai prior art.” Prelim. Reply 1. The Petition provides a colored version of Figure 12 from the ’776 patent (reproduced below) and identifies the following corresponding structures from the Specification of the ’776 Patent: The “lifter member” of the ’776 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow [ ]), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’776 patent, 9:30–46, 16:34–48, Fig. 12. The ’776 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31, 33. [citing] ’776 patent, 32:15–30, 32:48–63. Petition at 13. Based on the record before us, we determine that this identification of corresponding structure is sufficient to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has identified the correct corresponding structure. To the extent the parties wish to further address the construction of this claim limitation, they may do so during trial, as permitted by our rules.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“to mean “a chamber that is distinct from the displacement volume of the hollow cylinder and contains part of the working air volume during operation.” Pet. 8. According to Petitioner “there is nothing in the intrinsic record or any of the claims of the ’776 patent that prevents the ‘main storage chamber’ from being in the hollow cylinder, so long as it is distinct from its separately-recited ‘displacement volume.’” Id. at 9 (emphases added). Patent Owner asserts that “[g]rounds 2 and 4 each requires this Board to interpret the ‘storage chamber’ to be the same structure as the hollow cylinder.” Prelim. Resp. 31. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he Federal Circuit, considering both parties’ claim construction arguments, rejected that construction.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide any citation to support its reference to the Federal Circuit decision. It appears to be a reference to the Kyocera decision considering review of the ITC determination. See Kyocera, 22 F.4th at 1383. That decision, however, construed claims in a related patent to “require two distinct structures: the main storage volume and a smaller “hollow cylinder” contained within the main storage volume. Based on the record before us, Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the Federal Circuit’s construction, which states two structures can be distinct even if one distinct structure is “contained within” the other distinct structure. Although the parties dispute the construction of the “storage chamber” claim limitation, this dispute relates only to Grounds 2 and 4. See Prelim. Resp. 31. We need not resolve it to determine whether to institute review. The parties are welcome to develop their arguments regarding this claim limitation during trial. 3. Conclusion Regarding Claim Construction Our claim construction analyses in this decision to institute a trial do not preclude the parties from arguing their proposed constructions of the claims during trial. Indeed, the parties are hereby given notice that claim construction, in general, is an issue to be addressed at trial. Claim construction will be determined at the close of all the evidence and after any hearing. The parties are expected to assert all their claim construction arguments and evidence in the Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, or otherwise during trial, as permitted by our rules.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,241,776 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00264 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Koki would prove the claims obvious over Haley and Lai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). If we institute an inter partes review, the trial must encompass all claims and grounds identified in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of all challenged claims. We, therefore, institute inter partes review of claims 1–15 on the grounds asserted in the Petition. B.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstituted
“not identical” to the structure that Petitioner identifies as corresponding to the “lifter” claim limitation. Prelim. Resp. 19. We agree that these structures are not identical. But on this record, they appear, at least preliminarily, to be equivalent. As Petitioner explains, both structures utilize a rotatable cam with pins to translate a driver (driver member 90 of the ’167 Patent and hammer 6 of Lai) into a position where the driver is ready for use. See Pet. 12–15. Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s showing that Lai teaches or suggests the subject matter set forth in limitations 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, and we find Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Lai does so.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“1. Lifter The Petition explicitly states that the “lifter” limitation is a means- plus-function limitation—a contention Patent Owner does not dispute. See Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 9–11. Patent Owner argues, however, that Petitioner has “fail[ed] to identify any structure in the ’007 [sic] Patent to perform the claimed function.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We disagree. The Petition identifies the following corresponding structures from the Specification of the ’167 Patent: The “lifter” of the ’167 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow, below left), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’167 patent, 9:36-52, 16:39-53, Fig. 12. The ’167 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31 and 33. ’167 patent, 32:21-36, 32:54- 33:2. satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has identified the correct corresponding structure. To the extent the parties wish to further address the construction of this claim limitation, they may do so during trial.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner has identified the storage chamber of Haley as being chamber 85, a volume of space bounded by housing 40, extension cylinder 76, and elongate accumulator shell 80. See Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1004 Fig. 1. Haley’s elongate accumulator shell 80 (which Petitioner identifies as the removal top cap) is not the same as chamber 85; it is merely one component of the structure that encloses chamber 85. See id. And, though the Petitioner-identified removable top caps of Haley (a cylinder-shaped component, see id.) and Saari/Enstrom (a removable sleeve that extends into the interior of Saari/Enstrom’s cylinder, see id. at 48–49) have different Petitioner-identified storage chambers. We, therefore, are not persuaded that Petitioner’s contentions necessarily rely on implicit and inconsistent claim constructions.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,845,167 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00262 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Haley and Lai render the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“Patent Owner argues that we should discretionarily deny the Petition based on alleged deficiencies in the Petition. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “even if arguments as to a few claims might have been properly presented in the Petition, a decision to institute here would require the Board to address—for the first time and with no Petitioner input—critical claim construction issues affecting nearly every claim” in contravention of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Prelim. Resp. 34–35. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), or that critical and unresolved claim interpretation issues justifying discretionarily denying the Petition exist. We, therefore, decline to deny institution on this basis.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The parties’ briefs do not propose a specific definition of a level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally, Pet., Prelim. Resp. Dr. Vallee, however, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’954 patent: would have either (i) a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering with at least two years of experience in power nailer design; (ii) a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering with at least five years of experience in powered nailer design; or (iii) ten (or more) years of experience in powered nailer design. This experience in powered nailer design would include mechanical design, tool design, manufacturing, mechanics of materials, stress analysis, ergonomics, and human factors. Ex. 1003, ¶ 49. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Dr. Vallee’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“1. Lifter The Petition contends that the “lifter” limitation is a means-plus- function limitation, Pet. 7, which Patent Owner does not dispute, Prelim. Resp. 15–26. Patent Owner argues, however, that Petitioner has “fail[ed] to identify any structure in the ’007 [sic, ’954] Patent to perform the claimed function.” Prelim. Resp. 15. We disagree. Petitioner identifies the structures in the Specification corresponding to the “lifter” as follows: The “lifter member” of the ’954 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow, below left), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’954 patent, 9:25–41, 16:32–46, Fig. 12. The ’954 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31, 33. ’954 patent, 32:12–27, 32:45–60. Pet. 15. This identification of corresponding structure is sufficient to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has correctly identified the corresponding structure. The parties may further address the proper interpretation of “lifter” at trial.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,478,954 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00261 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Haley anticipates claims 1, 7, 8, 17, and 20 and Haley with Lai renders the remaining claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Patent Owner argues that we should discretionarily deny the Petition based on alleged deficiencies in the Petition. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “even if arguments as to a few claims might have been properly presented in the Petition, a decision to institute here would require the Board to address—for the first time and with no Petitioner input—critical claim construction issues affecting nearly every claim” in contravention of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Prelim. Resp. 33–35. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), or that critical and unresolved claim interpretation issues justifying discretionarily denying the Petition exist. We, therefore, decline to deny institution on this basis. E. Claims 1, 7, 8, 17, and 20: Anticipation by Haley” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“1. Lifter The Petition contends that the “lifter” limitation is a means-plus- function limitation, Pet. 7, which Patent Owner does not dispute, Prelim. Resp. 10–14. Patent Owner argues, however, that Petitioner has “fail[ed] to identify any structure in the ’007 Patent to perform the claimed function.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We disagree. Petitioner identifies the structures in the Specification corresponding to the “lifter” as follows: The “lifter” (“lifter member”) of the ’007 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow below left), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’007 patent, 9:36–52, 16:39–53, Fig. 12. The ’007 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31, 33. ’007 patent, 32:23–38, 32:56–33:4. Pet. 17. This identification of corresponding structure is sufficient to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has correctly identified the corresponding structure. The parties may further address the proper interpretation of “lifter” at trial.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“gas pressure system” recited in the preamble of independent claims 1 and 17. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner, through its comparison of claims 1 and 17 to Haley, improperly implies that the “gas pressure system” can be “limited to a distinct portion of a power tool.” Id. at 23. Patent Owner contends that such an interpretation is improper because the “gas pressure system” must refer to “the entire system,” because the “structure of the claims themselves . . . include[s] . . . every component of the tool.” Id. We disagree. The “gas pressure system” recited in the preambles of claims 1 and 17 expressly refers to a system that is “for a power tool” and thus does not necessarily refer to “the entire” tool or “every component of the tool.” Ex. 1001, 39:6 (claim 1), 40:51 (claim 17). Neither claim 1 nor claim 17 recites, for example, the lifter or driver, which are required elements of an “entire” tool. Id. at 39:6–22 (claim 1), 40:51–67 (claim 17). The lifter and driver are introduced in dependent claims 2 and 18. Id. at 39:23–30 (claim 2), 41:1–9 (claim 18). Still other necessary components of a tool, e.g., a motor and power source, are introduced in dependent claims 5 and 19. Id. at 39:40–42 (claim 5), 41:10–13 (claim 19). By contrast to claims 1 and 17, independent claims 9 and 14 recite a “portable fastener driving tool” and expressly recite many necessary components of such a tool including the driver, lifter, prime mover, and power source. Id. at 39:54 (claim 9), 40:20 (claim 14). Accordingly, we find that the “gas pressure system” of claims 1 and 17 broadly refers to a portion of a power tool rather than the “entire system” or “every component of the tool.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,034,007 - PTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00257 · APJ Lilan Ren · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Cable and Naware and over Comb and Tummala.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“discussed below, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, and we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently shown for purposes of institution that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cable and Naware in the manner argued by Petitioner. For example, both references directly relate to 3D printing, and we are persuaded that Cable teaches “a heated build platform and calls on the POSITA to implement this teaching via suitable solutions known in the art.” Pet. 13 (noting that Cable teaches a build platform that can be heated “by any suitable heating elements” (citing 1006 ¶ 45)). The current record also indicates that Naware taught known options in this regard, e.g., where it describes a build plate to be used in a 3D printing process that includes contact plates and temperature control modules. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, code (57). Petitioner additionally argues that there is a reasonable expectation of success in combining Cable with Naware because “3D printers with temperature-controlled heated build plates were well-known technologies at the time of the ’660 patent in 2014, and these technologies had been successfully demonstrated in the real-world by then.” Pet 15 (citing various portions of Ex. 1003). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s arguments with respect to a reasonable expectation of success in combining Cable with Naware. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on our review and consideration of the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently shown for the teachings of Cable and Naware in the manner argued by Petitioner.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner “does not contest Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art (a ‘POSITA’) having a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 37. Patent Owner does not address the specific knowledge that Petitioner contends that ordinarily skilled artisan would possess. Id. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears consistent with the disclosures of the ’660 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,592,660 - PTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00140 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all petitioned challenges, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is obvious over Nakajima and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 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) (2018). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of claims 1–18 of the ’250 patent is unpatentable, and we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–18 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 25). Petitioner asserts that more work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner admittedly sets forth “a similar, though slightly different, level of ordinary skill”: a bachelor’s degree in mechanical experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa. Prelim. Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 50). Patent Owner discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes of the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding. Id. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill as being consistent with the prior art, although our conclusion on whether to institute would be unchanged under either definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of this decision on institution, we adopt the proffered dictionary definition of “mouthpiece” as “a part (as of an instrument) that goes in the mouth or to which the mouth is applied” (see Ex. 2005), and we construe this as an intended use of this component of the apparatus, because this definition is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term which is a compound of “mouth” and “piece” and also because this definition is consistent with the Specification. For example, the Specification describes the use of the mouthpiece as follows: “In use, the mouthpiece is adapted to be configured to the dispensing configuration by a user placing the mouthpiece in the user’s mouth and biting upon or otherwise compressing the appropriate portions of sidewalls 92 of the mouthpiece.” Ex. 1001, 8:45–49. We note that, although the Specification refers to bite-actuation of the mouthpiece, for example in the field of the disclosure and certain embodiments (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:25–27), the independent claims do not require bite-actuation. The Specification identifies the mouthpiece as item 72 (which is depicted, for example, in Figure 25, reproduced supra). Ex. 1001, 3:7‒8. 7 Exhibit 2005 appears to be from an online Merriam-Webster dictionary accessed March 13, 2025. Ex. 2005, 4. At this time, there is no argument in the preliminary record that this definition would have been different before the critical date of the patent.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although the construction of this limitation may be helpful in deciding the issues of unpatentability, we determine that the construction of this term would benefit from further briefing during the trial phase of this proceeding, and we invite the parties to continue to brief this issue. Therefore, we do not provide a preliminary construction of the term at this time.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,851,250 - Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00146 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Trove did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and the preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10–19 of the ’879 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, 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.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for the term “user release mechanism,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–23; Prelim. Resp. 27–30. Patent Owner also proposes constructions for “automatically disengage the first and second catch structures,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 30– 32. For purposes of this particular Decision, we determine that no term requires construction to decide whether to institute inter partes review of the ’879 patent. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, Petitioner’s reason to modify Kiyota “to provide the advantage of a bite actuated mouthpiece” (Pet. 42) does not explain why one would use Choi’s mount 100. Petitioner has not clearly established that to use a bite-actuated mouthpiece requires mount 100. Choi describes that “cap assembly 14 may include a mount 100 to which the bite-actuated mouthpiece is removably mounted, or secured.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. This description suggests that mount 100 is not a required component for a bite-actuated mouthpiece. Our understanding is supported by Patent Owner’s expert, who testified that using Choi’s mount as a “rigid collar member” in Kiyota’s mouthpiece assembly does not require combining its bite-actuated valve because “the bite-actuated portion has nothing to do with the alleged rigid collar member portion.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 119 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 46); see also Prelim. Resp. 55. Thus, Petitioner has not adequately supported this first reason to modify Kiyota to use Choi’s mount 100.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,165,879 - PTAB · May 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00032 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 are obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“At least because of the material differences in Ferro compared to Hafner ’174 and the reliance on Donnelly and Letendre, which were not before the Office, we find that the same or substantially the same art was not previously presented to the Office.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We disagree with Patent Owner. It is true that Oyobe focuses on alerting a vehicle user to a low state of charge by raising a physical indicator on the exterior of the vehicle (i.e., the “informing apparatus 102) when the battery is low. Ex. 1005 ¶ 40. Oyobe explains: even in such a case where the vehicle user exit from the vehicle without checking the SOC of main battery B on the console panel, informing apparatus 102 disposed at a location where it can easily be seen outside the vehicle by the vehicle user allows the vehicle user to easily recognize the necessity of charging main battery B. Id. However, Oyobe’s focus on raising a physical indicator on the vehicle as a reminder does not detract from Oyobe’s unambiguous disclosure that its vehicle also includes position detecting apparatus 108 that uses wireless communication to “sense that the vehicle is parked at the location where charging equipment is installed.” Id. ¶ 142. Oyobe’s ability to sense whether a vehicle is parked next to a charger allows Oyobe’s system to remind the user to charge the battery by raising low battery indicator 102 while the vehicle is located next to a charger but not “where charging cannot be performed.” Id. ¶¶ 143–145. Accordingly, regardless of the reason that Oyobe provides for including its vehicle position detecting apparatus, Oyobe undeniably describes a vehicle sensor that can provide “information indicative of a presence of an electric vehicle in a parking space” near a charging station. And, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently explained why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Oyobe’s sensor in Ferro’s electric vehicle to “advantageously allows a user to instruct charging without exiting the vehicle and physically interacting with a charging station.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150–152).” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner violates Rule 42.6(a)(3) by improperly incorporating arguments from Mr. Andrews’s Declaration into the Petition to establish that Oyobe teaches sensing the presence of a vehicle in a “parking space” as recited in limitation 1e. Prelim. Resp. 42–43 (citing Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–181)). Patent Owner contends that Mr. Andrews’s citation of four references that are not expressly cited in the Petition, Exhibits 1018, 1053, 1057, and 1059, implicitly demonstrates that the Petition incorporates arguments by reference. Id. Not only do we find Petitioner’s reliance on Mr. Andrews’s testimony to be persuasive, but we also find that Mr. Andrews’s citations to Exhibits 1018, 1053, 1057, and 1059 provide strong support for his testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that Oyobe teaches that its vehicle is in a parking space when Oyobe’s apparatus 108 detects that “the vehicle is parked” near charging equipment. Far from improperly incorporating arguments by reference, we find Mr. Andrews’s citation to objective evidence to support his opinions on how an ordinarily skilled artisan would read Oyobe’s disclosure to be preferred and highly persuasive.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,563,338 - Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01501 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Trove did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, or 21 obvious over the asserted prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and the preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 21 of the ’028 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56–65). Patent Owner also states that it “discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding.” Id. We agree that there appears to be no material difference in the parties’ definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’028 patent, based on our review of the limited record. Moreover, the prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because “mechanism” is a nonce word for performing the claimed function without reciting structure for performing that function, and a POSITA would not have understood the term to have “a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure that performs the claimed function.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 39). For claim 1, Petitioner identifies two distinct structures described in the ’028 patent that correspond to the claimed “user release mechanism” for performing the claimed functions. Id. at 34. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the ’028 patent describes a first embodiment in which the corresponding structure includes sliding member 238, and its component parts. Id. at 34– 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:50–13:25, 13:29–33). In the second embodiment, the corresponding structure includes user engagement portion 260 on rigid collar 170. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:40–54). Petitioner does not separately address the structure corresponding to the “user release mechanism” as recited in claim 21. Id. at 53‒54 (relying on the same arguments presented for unpatentability of claim 1). court issued a claim construction order in the parallel litigation construing the term “user release mechanism” as a means-plus-function limitation under § 112, sixth paragraph. Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2002, 12–15). The district court ruled that the corresponding structure for claim 1 includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts,” or “[u]ser engagement portion 260.” Ex. 2002, 15. For claim 21, the district court ruled that the corresponding structure includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts” or “[u]ser engagement pad 240, planar portion 242, tabs 244, collar engagement portion 254, depression 256.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner indicates that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding only,” it does not dispute that the claimed user release mechanisms are means-plusfunction limitations, and it does not dispute the corresponding structure identified by Petitioner, even though the district court did not specifically identify engagement portion 260 as corresponding structure for claim 21. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2002, 15–19). Although Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the “user release mechanism,” because claim interpretation is a matter of law and the dispositive issue in this Decision turns on the interpretation of this claim limitation, we address it in this Decision. We agree with the parties that the “user release mechanism” elements recited in claims 1 and 21 are means-plus-function limitations governed by § 112, sixth paragraph. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”). “means,” it uses the nonce word “mechanism” without reciting structure for performing the functions recited in the claims. See Williamson v. CitrixOnline, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word “means” because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“[U]nder § 112, ¶ 6 equivalence, functional identity is required” and “[s]tructural equivalence under § 112, ¶ 6 is met only if the differences are insubstantial, that is, if the assertedly equivalent structure performs the claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding structure described in the specification.” (citing Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Here, Petitioner states that Kiyota’s lock release buttons 40 “perform the claimed function in the same way to achieve the same result” as the ’028 patent’s sliding member 238, and its component parts (Pet. 37) without providing sufficient supporting explanation or evidence. Petitioner explains only that the two structures operate in “substantially the same way” by a user pressing an element that that slides towards the mouthpiece assembly to disengage the catch structures. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). The Petition does not discuss any of the differences between Kiyota’s structure and the ’028 patent’s structure or provide an explanation of why these differences are insubstantial. Indeed, as Patent Owner persuasively explains, there are notable differences in the “way” the two structures perform the claimed function and the “result” they achieve. See Prelim. Resp. 39–40 (discussing the ’028 patent’s one-finger operation and indirect catch disengagement, versus Kiyota’s two-finger operation and direct catch disengagement). Moreover, the analysis in Dr. Vallee’s declaration substantially parallels the discussion in the Petition and does not provide any additional explanation or evidence to show that the differences between the “way” the two structures operate or the “result” they achieve are insubstantial. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91, with Pet. 34–38. For these reasons, Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that Kiyota discloses an equivalent structure to the structure described in the ’028 patent corresponding to the “user release mechanism” recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Kiyota. slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,782,028 - Catalyst Orthoscience Inc. v. Shoulder Innovations, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · PGR2025-00001 · APJ James A Tartal · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of post-grant review of claims 1–22, exercising its discretion under § 324(a) based on the Fintiv factors.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“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. Fintiv 5−6. We consider these factors to assess “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. at 6. In” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“parties, we do not find the merits to be particularly strong on the current record. For example, limitation [1-4] recites, in part, “a locking nut having . . . an external thread on an outside surface of the locking nut.” Ex. 1001, 9:46–47. In alleging obviousness based in part on Orphanos, Petitioner equates the claimed “locking nut” to Orphanos’s collet 230 in a first embodiment of Orphanos, or Orphanos’s collet portion 1052 in a second embodiment of Orphanos. Pet. 37–38. Petitioner acknowledges that the collet and collet portion do not have external threads, but rather are designed to have a snap-fit engagement with the inner sidewall of the baseplate’s central throughbore. Id. at 38. Petitioner argues that modifying the collet and collet portion to have external threads would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in view of Orphanos’s teachings and the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 38–42 (arguing, inter alia, that it would have been “a substitution of a known part for a known problem” and “obvious as a matter of design choice”). Petitioner does not allege that replacing the snap-fit coupling with external threads would either: (1) result in any advantages; or (2) preserve any of Orphanos’s stated benefits of its snap-fit arrangement. See Pet. 34–37. That Petitioner describes no advantages to making its proposed modification potentially undermines Petitioner’s case that the skilled artisan would have done so. Cf. Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANot reached
“Petitioner’s arguments regarding the central post and locking nut include an implicit claim construction argument that these components need not be separate structures. Pet. 74, 76–81. Patent Owner, on the other hand, would have us interpret the claim to require that they be separate structures. Patent Owner raises credible evidence to support its theory. Specifically, Patent Owner directs us to the language of claim 1, which separately recites “a central screw” and “a locking nut.” Prelim. Resp. 51; see Ex. 1001, 9:44–53. Patent Owner further contends, in view of the claim language, that the claimed central post and locking nut are separate and distinct components. According to Patent Owner, however, Lefebvre’s main head and anchor rod portions are parts of a single monolithic anchoring screw. Prelim. Resp. 53–58. Where a claim lists elements separately, there is a rebuttable presumption that these elements have separate and distinct physical structures. See Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 92 F.4th 1049, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citing Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–1232 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). The presumption may be rebutted by the intrinsic record. Id. At this stage, however, Petitioner does not address that claim 1 appears to separately recite a central post and a locking nut, and does not direct us to any portion of the intrinsic record that might rebut the presumption that these elements are, therefore, separate and distinct structures. See Pet. 73–77. Petitioner also argues that the claim terms “baseplate central channel” and “central channel . . . configured to interface with the baseplate” are indefinite. Pet. 95–102. Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms is clear and that Petitioner “had no problem” arguing how the asserted art purportedly rendered the claims obvious. Prelim. Resp. 69–77.” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not reached
“Petitioner also argues that the claim terms “baseplate central channel” and “central channel . . . configured to interface with the baseplate” are indefinite. Pet. 95–102. Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms is clear and that Petitioner “had no problem” arguing how the asserted art purportedly rendered the claims obvious. Prelim. Resp. 69–77. In sum, even if Petitioner’s contentions show it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable, we find Patent Owner’s arguments identify credible weaknesses in Petitioner’s contentions. Accordingly, we find that that the sixth Fintiv factor is neutral and does not weigh against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,023,254
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.