• Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00176 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on all challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors—particularly investment, overlap, and merits—weighed against review.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “raised by this overlap, but given the circumstances, it does not effectively mitigate them. First, the disputed issues for Petitioner’s ODP defense are the same or substantially similar to those for the obviousness grounds in the Petition, but the Sotera stipulation does not prevent Petitioner from litigating those issues before both the district court (as part of its ODP defense) and here in the event an IPR is instituted.19 Second, the MDL proceeding 19 ODP or nonstatutory double patenting is, as the name implies, not premised on any statute. See, e.g., Ostuka Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Nonstatutory double patenting is a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy.”). Accordingly, it is not a ground Petitioner reasonably could have raised in this IPR. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (inter partes review may be requested “only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103”). includes other biosimilar applicant defendants who are similarly motivated to try to invalidate the ’865 patent claims, but who are not subject to any Sotera stipulation. Even if we institute review on Petitioner’s grounds here, those other defendants remain free to litigate the same grounds in the consolidated MDL proceeding. For these reasons and given the particular circumstances of this case, Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation does not sufficiently mitigate the risks of duplicated efforts or inconsistent decisions by making this IPR a “true alternative” to resolution of these issues by the district court. See Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Stellar, LLC, IPR2024-01205, Paper 19, 3–4 (PTAB Mar. 28, 2005) (determining on Director Review that a Sotera stipulation did not ensure IPR would be a “true alternative” because Petitioner’s invalidity arguments “include combinations of the prior art asserted in these proceedings with unpublished system prior art, which Petitioner’s stipulation is not likely to moot” and thus the same or similar issues would remain in the parallel proceeding); SAP America, Inc. v. Cyandia, Inc., IPR2024-01496, Paper 13, 8–9 (PTAB Apr. 7, 2025) (similar).” slip op. at 19

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,084,865
• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2025 · PGR2025-00003 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1–4 and 8–21 because the Board found a more-likely-than-not showing of written description and enablement failures; the obviousness ground did not meet that threshold.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the prior art relevant to the ’600 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases.” slip op. at 8

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

    “refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–53 (emphasis added). Based on this express definition, the current record does not support the interpretation of Dr. Triggs-Raine that the “term ‘modified PH20 polypeptide,’ therefore, has a purely structural meaning in the context of the specification.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 68.4 Indeed, when reproducing the definition from this column of the ’600 patent, Dr. Triggs-Raine does not include any text after the first period, but the ’600 patent text continues to detail specific elements required including a requirement that replacements in the PH20 polypeptide are permitted “so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Ex. 1001, 48:44‒46. On this” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner

    “on the ’429 patent, and there is no evidence of record that the Examiner meaningfully considered the relevant disclosures of the ’429 patent. We find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s reliance on the Examiner’s issuance of an office action with a written description rejection over a different issue that also included some double patenting rejections. As to Becton, Dickinson Factor (e), “whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the [E]xaminer erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art,” Petitioner provides persuasive evidence of Examiner error. See Pet. 36–39 (citing Ex. 1009, 21–27). We agree with Petitioner that the Examiner overlooked the written description requirement with regard to claim 1. As discussed below, we find that, on the current record, the evidence sufficiently shows that it is more likely than not that the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. See Section X. We, thus, find that the Examiner erred by either overlooking, or failing to appreciate, the factual underpinning necessary to support a written description for the breadth of an enormous genus claim such as claim 1 of the ’600 patent.” slip op. at 22

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

    “XIII. CONCLUSION Petitioner has, at this stage, established that it will more likely than not prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. This determination is, however, based on a preliminary record and is not final on any issues of patentability. We will make a final determination on the patentability of the challenged claims, as necessary and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, based on a fully developed record through trial. XIV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) post grant review of claims 1–4 and 8–21 of the ’600 patent is hereby instituted on the grounds set forth in the Petition, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and” slip op. at 60

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,952,600
• Digital Global Systems, Inc. v. Deepsig Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00194 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding no reasonable likelihood for the remaining claims except claim 13, whose potential success did not justify instituting trial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent and at least two years of experience working with radio communication systems and machine learning.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. We adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4

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

    “the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the 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). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 16. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 4–6, 12, 14, and 16–22 would have been obvious over Jüschke and Holt. Petitioner may satisfy its burden for claim 13, but, as discussed below, that would not impact our decision to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See Section II.F.” slip op. at 16

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “inter partes review. SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 366 (2018). Specifically, “[i]f a panel determines that a petition meets the standards for institution in relation to fewer than all the challenges presented, . . . the panel will evaluate all the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 64 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/tpgnov.pdf. Here, thirteen challenged claims remain after Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer. Petitioner at most demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for one dependent claim, which has no claims depending therefrom. See Sections II.C–II.E. Thus, based on the particular facts of this case, we find that instituting trial would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources, and we exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). See Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative); Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,777,540
• Cipla Limited v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00033 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–13 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “We determine that this factor weighs heavily in favor of exercising discretion to deny the Petition. The trial date in the district court litigation is scheduled for October 6, 2025. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2010). This date is at least six months before our projected statutory deadline should we go forward in this case. Patent Owner points out that this trial date is nine months later than the median time to trial in the District of Delaware, and in Patent Owner’s view, the parties are on track to satisfy the current schedule. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2011).” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “1 Patent Owner also asserts that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), but we need not reach this issue because we are exercising discretion under Section 314(a) to deny the Petition. See Prelim. Resp. 2–3.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,744,802
• Hanshow America Inc. / Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ses-Imagotag GmbHSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00188 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable as obvious over either asserted combination; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable under either ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The only significant difference between the positions of Petitioner and Patent Owner is that Patent Owner would require that a skilled artisan have coursework or training or work experience in multimedia systems in addition to the other requirements. Otherwise, the positions of the parties are similar. Based upon this record and the qualifications on which the parties and their experts agree, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’669 patent relates would have at least a Master of Science Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar technical Master’s Degree; or alternatively, a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field with two or more years of work experience in a relevant field or relevant industry experience. However, our decision on obviousness is supported by either of the definitions offered by the parties.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . 4 Neither party argues lexicography or disavowal applies to any claim term. See generally Pet.; see generally PO Resp. 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))). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning to all the claim terms. To the extent it is necessary to address the meaning of any claim term in order to make a final determination whether or not any challenged claim is unpatentable based on the arguments and evidence presented, we address the meaning as part of our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “[1.0] A video playback system (1), comprising The Petitioner contends that the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting. Pet. 17 (“The preamble of claim 1 is not limiting because it merely states the purpose or intended use of the alleged invention. It does not define any of the claim limitations, which are set forth fully in the body of the claim (i.e., a video playback system).”). Nonetheless, Petitioner cites both Swafford and Masumoto and shows both cited references disclose video playback systems. Id. at 17–18. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention that the preamble is not limiting or dispute that the cited art discloses the preamble. See generally PO Resp. We determine that the preamble is not limiting but, if it were, the cited art has been shown to teach it. [1.1] a number of playback devices (6A, 6B) to playback a video on their” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “However, we do agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contention that the cited combination of teachings is supported “because of the structural similarity between Swafford’s and Masumoto’s devices” (Pet. 54– 55) does not provide a motivation to combine. PO Resp, 47–48. The only structural similarity relied on by Petitioner in support of this argument is that Swafford and Masumoto both disclose use of LCDs. See Pet. 54–55. Petitioner provides an inadequate explanation as to how or why the use of LCDs which are a common form of video displays would motivate the combination of the relied-upon teachings. But, this deficiency does not undermine the persuasiveness of Petitioner’s overall showing of motivation to combine. After considering all the arguments and evidence offered by the parties, we determine that Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the relied-upon teachings of Swafford and Masumoto with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 11,405,669 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,405,669
• Hanshow America Inc. / Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ses-Imagotag Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00189 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because Fujiwara lacks the claimed horizontal position, and Bandy with Fowler lacks the claimed vertical position.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have had at least a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, or an equivalent field (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree). Ex. 1009, ¶34. Alternatively, . . . a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, or an equivalent field with two or more years of work experience in electrical engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, computer engineering, or an equivalent field. Id. Additional education in a relevant field or relevant industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. Id. Pet. 9. Patent Owner applies the same definition. PO Resp. 17. We apply the parties’ proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’340 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededGranted in part

    “c) Conclusion Having reviewed the claim language and the specification, we determine that the claimed planogram stores one piece of data with respect to identification—a unique identifier—and two pieces of data with respect to location—a vertical position and a horizontal position. Further, claim 1 states that each location (i.e., each horizontal/vertical position pair) is unique (“one-to-one”) for each unique identifier. Ex. 1001, 8:25–27. Thus, we determine that no horizontal/vertical position pair will be associated with more than one unique identifier (and vice versa). No other terms require construction at this time. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 9

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

    “taught by “the horizontal position of the electronic shelf label along the horizontal shelf part 21, as shown in FIG. 4.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 75). Certainly, each shelf label in the real world, as well as in the drawing of Figure 4, has a horizontal position. However, that does not mean that Fujiwara’s database stores information indicating the horizontal position of the shelf label as required by the claim. The claim is not calling for the shelf label to have a location; it is calling for location information to be accessible by the server so that the server can determine the location of the mobile terminal. Ex. 1001, 8:19–24 (claiming a “method being performed by a central server configured to access a planogram associating . . . identifiers . . . with . . . locations . . . defined by a vertical and horizontal position”), 8:41–46 (claiming a method step of “determining a location of the mobile terminal . . . based on . . . the planogram). For example, fields in a database storing horizontal and vertical positions would be sufficient. Id. at 6:31–36 (“The central server 2 determines the location of said mobile terminal 1 from the identifier of said electronic label 3 using the data of a planogram associating a location with the label identifier.”), 7:16–18 (calling for the planogram to be stored in a database). To the extent we accept that Fujiwara teaches a unique identifier (shelf label ID) and a vertical position (e.g., shelf number 21-1), we find Fujiwara to be missing a horizontal position as required by the claim because neither the shelf number nor the shelf label ID provides an indication of where along the shelf the shelf label is located.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1013–1021 and 1024–1027. PO Mot. Excl. 1. Our analysis above focuses on a dispositive issue regarding the claimed planogram. We are not apprised of any citations to these documents in the briefing regarding the planogram issue. Indeed, according to Patent Owner, Exhibits 1013–1021 involve one of the issues we did not address, regarding near-field communications. PO Mot. Excl. 3–4. Because this motion involves a question on evidence that is not relevant to the issues discussed in this Decision, we need not rule on the motion at this time. We dismiss Patent Owner’s motion to exclude as moot.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,674,340 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,674,340
• DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2023-00268 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, 16–18, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious over Scott; the Board did not reach the anticipation challenge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field; and at least two years of experience in the wager based gaming industry.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Petitioner states that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). 1 The parties have not directed us to any such objective evidence. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We note that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Vancura, uses essentially the same definition as Petitioner. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 33; Ex. 2007 ¶ 46. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Both parties’ witnesses interpret “fixed odds” to mean the odds/multiplier of the wager is fixed at the time the wager is placed. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 160 (“the wager on a bingo game would be a ‘fixed odds single’ wager when placed because the odds of winning are fixed” (original emphasis omitted, our emphasis added)); Ex. 2007 ¶ 135 (“‘fixed odds’ in the context of a ‘fixed odds single’ [means] a wager where a bettor is offered a multiplier for wagering on a given outcome(s), and where the multiplier and therefore the potential payout are fixed at the time the bettor places their desired wager”). It necessarily follows that the payout for the wager would also be fixed at the time the wager is placed. Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation that “single” means the wager is for the outcome of a single event, as opposed to, for example, a parlay wager that involves the outcomes of multiple events. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 19 (“[an ordinarily skilled artisan] would understand the term ‘fixed odds single’ to refer to a game where ‘the odds of winning are fixed, and the wager is on a single outcome’”). Accordingly, we interpret “fixed odds single” to mean a wager on the outcome of a single event in which the odds/multiplier is fixed at the time the wager is placed. The parties disagree, however, on whether bingo is a fixed odds single wagering event. Dr. Vancura testifies that bingo does not involve a fixed odds single wager because “[b]ingo does not have a ‘fixed odds’ payout — it has a ‘pot’ available to be won, which is either pre-determined by the operator . . . , or more commonly, depends on the number of cards in play wherein part of the purchase price of each card is contributed to a jackpot.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 136. Mr. Crevelt testifies that bingo does involve a fixed odds single wager because all bingo cards have the same chance of winning prior to initiation of the game. Ex. 1007 ¶ 160. Mr. Crevelt does not address meaningfully the fact that the odds of winning at bingo are a function of the number of cards in play—as the number of cards in play increases, the chances that another card first achieves “bingo” increase and the initial player’s chance of winning decreases. Nor does Petitioner explain persuasively how the disclosure of a fixed odds betting terminal in the ’779 patent supports its assertion that bingo is a fixed odds single wager. See Pet. Reply 20. Notably, a reference relied upon by Petitioner explains that fixed odds betting terminals host games other than fixed odds games. See Ex. 1058, 28 (explaining that fixed odds betting terminals “are machines on which can be played fixed odds and betting games”); see also Tr. 23:12–22 (Petitioner’s counsel agreeing that there has been some scope creep regarding fixed odds betting terminals such that they include games other than fixed odds single wagers). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that bingo is not a fixed odds single wager.” slip op. at 36

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “However, we agree that claim 16 recites a system where multiple participants place wagers on the same wagering event. Claim 16 uses both plural and singular terms, indicating that the recited plural terms refer to a plurality of elements and the recited singular terms refer to a single element. For example, claim 16 recites “receive, by the trading engine module, a plurality of wagers on the wagering event from the plurality of input devices via the communications interface, the plurality of wagers input by a plurality of participants via the user interfaces of respective input devices from the plurality of input devices.” Ex. 1001, 54:11–16. We interpret this language to mean that a single trading engine module receives wagers on a single wagering event from a plurality of participants each using a different input device. Scott discloses “a number of players electronically connected” where one player may sell symbols to “other players.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 96. Scott also discloses various types of games, including games typically played by more than one player. See, e.g., id. ¶ 44 (disclosing “Class II” games, keno, lottery, bingo). Thus, Scott at least suggests a system where multiple participants engage in the same game. We are persuaded that it would have been obvious to use Scott’s gaming machine in a multiplayer environment. Mr. Crevelt testifies that “it is an obvious matter of common sense to take a system that can be for use by one player and put it to use for multiple players” and “if one player is able to utilize Scott’s system described above in accordance [with] claim 1, but multiple players wanted to play, common sense dictates that such systems should be reproduced for multiple players.” Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 183–184. We agree, especially given Scott’s strong suggestion that its system may be used to host multiplayer games as noted above. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing, as it is not clear to us, and Patent Owner has not explained adequately, how reproducing Scott’s system for multiple players, as proposed by Petitioner, would not result in a multiplayer wagering system.” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s obviousness rationales are supported by rational underpinning. Petitioner correctly notes that Scott discloses that its memory devices “may utilize various storage technologies to accomplish data storage and retrieval.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53; Pet. 84 (citing same). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that, given the widespread use of databases to store data in computer systems and computerized gaming systems in particular, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to store Scott’s player tracking account data as records in a database. See Pet. 84–85 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:19–26, 26:29–32; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 96; Ex. 1006 ¶ 53; Ex. 1007 ¶ 92); see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 103 (Dr. Vancura testifying that, in his experience, “player tracking systems store a player’s wagering information”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Scott and Mr. Crevelt’s testimony support Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,200,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,200,779
• Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/SInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01497 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 would have been obvious over Duan and Duan-I.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter 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). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness.3 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’681 patent claims benefit of a May 6, 2005, filing date, which is before the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments. Ex. 1001, Code [63]. 3 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of secondary considerations in its Preliminary Response. Therefore, secondary considerations do not constitute part of our analysis herein. unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Abraham, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’681 patent “would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling systems for computer systems, would have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, such as an B.S. (bachelor of science), or equivalent thereof, in electrical or mechanical engineering or a closely-related field, and would have possessed at least two or three years of experience in liquid cooling systems for computer systems, or in similar systems.” Pet. 17. Petitioner additionally contends a “person with less education but more relevant practical experience, depending on the nature of that experience and degree of exposure to liquid cooling systems for computer systems, could also qualify as a POSITA in the field of the ’681 patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 42). Patent Owner does not address the level of skill of the ordinary artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’681 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe any specific terms require construction and applies the plain meaning of all claim terms herein.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, 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))).” slip op. at 14

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

    “motivated to combine Duan and Duan-I in this manner, Petitioner argues that “given the known ‘compact trend of computer[s]’ recognized by Duan [], a POSITA would have been motivated to rotate Duan’s liquid driving module 2 (pump) counterclockwise by 90 degrees in Figure 7 to reduce the systems overall height in view of Duan-I.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 6; Ex. 1005 ¶ 57). Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough modifying Duan in this fashion would require some minor reconstruction, doing so would reasonably be expected to result in success.” Id. Petitioner contends that “[t]he modification is well within a POSITA’s technical grasp, and would have predictably resulted in a modified system like the one [reproduced] below (double-sided chassis outlined in red).” Id. at 26–27. Petitioner provides the following graphical explanation, reproduced below, of how it arrives at this modified figure.” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,733,681
• Beone Medicines USA, Inc. / Beigene, Ltd. v. Pharmacyclics LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 1, 2025 · PGR2024-00009 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 12, and 20 are unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the enablement, anticipation, or obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” slip op. at 10

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

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting and that the terms “optionally substituted fused heterocyclic ring system” and “irreversible” BTKIs should be construed consistent with the definitions provided in the Specification. Pet. 42–45; see also id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 19:57–20:7 (defining “optionally substituted” or “substituted”), 14:51–52 (defining “fused”), 15:66–16:21 (defining “heterocycle”), 14:36–44 (defining “ring” and “ring system”), 26:23–25 (defining “irreversible Btk inhibitor”); PO Resp. 26.” slip op. at 14

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

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “To satisfy written description for the claimed genus of iBTKIs, the Specification must describe either a representative number of members of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus with enough precision that a POSA can visualize or recognize the members of the genus. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Patent Owner concedes that the Specification does not describe a representative number of members of the genus, stating “this is a common structural features case.” Tr. 65:25–66:3. We, therefore, focus our analysis on whether the Specification adequately describes common structural features of the genus. We find that it does not.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,672,803 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,672,803
• Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00136 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution

  Institution of inter partes review was denied for claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Accordingly, we find that on the current record Petitioner has not shown that it has a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on these obviousness grounds. XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5. XIII. CONCLUSION After reviewing the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that, based on the evidence of record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 of the ’841 patent are unpatentable. XIV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds presented in the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 35

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “However, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Jansky provide specific data on the record before us showing the actual measured homozygosity of either of the inbred lines, US-W 5309 and US-W 5315. And Phumichai experimentally demonstrates that Dr. Jansky’s assumption that theoretical heterozygosity reduction of 50% per generation is not necessarily accurate, stating the “observed average percentage of reduction of heterozygosity per generation (38.4% or 38.5%) was lower than the theoretically expected value of 50%.” Ex. 1005, 982. Indeed, Phumichai disclosed that the “SOPH [Section-based observed percentage of heterozygosity] decreased steadily from the original 100% in 99H2–1 (S0) to the family means of 62.4% in 3H2 (S1), 37.9% in 3H3 (S2).” Id. at 981. That is, Phumichai experimentally shows that in an S2 generation of a potato line, the heterozygosity was 37.9%, resulting in homozygosity of about 62.1%, below the 75% theoretically expected and the 75% required by claim 1 of the ’841 patent. Therefore, the evidence of record does not show that the S2 generation of potato lines in Jong necessarily satisfies the homozygosity recitation in claim 1 of the ’841 patent, and so cannot establish on the record before us that Jong inherently teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Owner is telling. Petitioner does not refute Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia. On the current record, the objective indicia evidence is compelling. As to long felt need, Patent Owner cited evidence on record before the Examiner that showed a persistent need recognized by ordinarily skilled artisans. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538 (CCPA 1967). For example, Dr. Huang states “This research is the breakthrough we have been waiting for since nearly a century . . . This is crucial for the potato breeding worldwide.” Ex. 2009, 687. There is no evidence that this long-felt need was satisfied by another before Appellant’s invention. See Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved . . . .”). Lastly, Dr. Lindhout explains that this invention satisfies the long-felt need, stating “I have discovered, and disclosed in the present application for patent, how a fertile homozygote in” slip op. at 33

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,140,841

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.