- Microsoft Corporation v. Eyesmatch Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00297 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–18 on all petition grounds and granted Microsoft’s motion to join IPR2024-00856.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. DECISION ON INSTITUTION Petitioner represents that the challenges to the claims of the’109 patent in the Petition are “intentionally identical . . . in all substantive aspects” to the challenges in the ’856 IPR. See Joinder Motion 2; compare ’856 IPR, Paper 1, 2–4, with Pet. 2–3. Petitioner further represents that this proceeding and the ’856 IPR “rely upon the same analytical framework (e.g., same expert declarant and prior art) in addressing the Challenged Claims.” Joinder Motion 2. Additionally, Patent Owner does not present an opposition to the Petition on the merits and does not oppose joinder. See, e.g., Notice, 1. In view of the foregoing, for the reasons given above and in the ’856 Institution Decision, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to at least one claim of the ’109 patent. We therefore institute inter partes review of all challenges in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Joinder is a matter within the Board’s discretion based on the particular circumstances of each proceeding. For the reasons given above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that permitting Petitioner to join the ’856 IPR would avoid duplication and promote the efficient resolution of both proceedings and is therefore in the interests of justice.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenInstituted
“III. DECISION ON INSTITUTION Petitioner represents that the challenges to the claims of the’109 patent in the Petition are “intentionally identical . . . in all substantive aspects” to the challenges in the ’856 IPR. See Joinder Motion 2; compare ’856 IPR, Paper 1, 2–4, with Pet. 2–3. Petitioner further represents that this proceeding and the ’856 IPR “rely upon the same analytical framework (e.g., same expert declarant and prior art) in addressing the Challenged Claims.” Joinder Motion 2. Additionally, Patent Owner does not present an opposition to the Petition on the merits and does not oppose joinder. See, e.g., Notice, 1. In view of the foregoing, for the reasons given above and in the ’856 Institution Decision, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to at least one claim of the ’109 patent. We therefore institute inter partes review of all challenges in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,982,109 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00099 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, and 17–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Fukuzumi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Anticipation “requires that every element and limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in possession of the invention.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Anticipation also requires that a reference discloses “all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming, arguendo, that the “Chinese government” or YMTC Holding constitute an unnamed RPI, Patent Owner does not sufficiently show that the failure identify the RPI is a reason to decline to institute this proceeding. Patent Owner has not asserted that a statutory bar or other estoppel would apply to either the Chinese government or YMTC Holding in this proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11, 18 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential); Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential) (stating that a petition may be corrected, including adding a real party-in-interest, without assigning a new filing date); see also Paper 9 (granting Petitioner’s unopposed motion to amend its mandatory notices to add a subsidiary of YMTI as an RPI without changing the filing date). Indeed, in Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, the Director instructed that the precedential SharkNinja decision held that it “best serves the Office’s interests in cost and efficiency to not resolve an RPI issue when it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 in that proceeding.” Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 76 at 4 (PTAB May 22, 2023) (“Unified Patents”) (vacating the Board’s RPI determination in the Final Written Decision as not necessary to resolve the proceeding, such as a time bar under § 315(b) or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)). Here, as neither the Chinese government nor YMTC Prelim. Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2021 (“YMTC’s Corporate Disclosure Statement), 2). Holding have been sued for patent infringement, Patent Owner has not shown that a determination of whether the Chinese government or YMTC Holding are an RPI, or are in privity with Petitioner, would impact the underlying proceeding or would result in a time bar or estoppel. As such, we do not address Patent Owner’s RPI argument.” slip op. at 23
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. To date, the Director has not provided any guidance as to when a panel should deny institution based on foreign policy or national security implications, applicable to the facts presented here. To the contrary, the USPTO has expressly determined that Board panels, in considering discretionary denial sought in a Preliminary Response filed on or before March 26, 2025, may not consider such factors. FAQs for Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management, FAQ 5, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/faqs/interim-processes-workload-management (stating, “The panel will not address any new factors outlined in the Process Memorandum”). Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution for this requested reason.” slip op. at 25
Discretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,872,903 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00098 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6–10, 12–13, 16–18, 23–26, 28, 30, and 32 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Chae.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“1. Legal Standards “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). Anticipation “requires that every element and limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in possession of the invention.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Anticipation also requires that a reference discloses “all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“Even assuming, arguendo, that the “Chinese government” or YMTC Holding constitute an unnamed RPI, Patent Owner does not sufficiently show that the failure identify the RPI is a reason to decline to institute this proceeding. Patent Owner has not asserted that a statutory bar or other 7 Patent Owner refers to the “Chinese government” as an unnamed RPI but does not identify what the “Chinese government” is. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 3–5 (referring to “China’s State Council”), 6 (municipal governments), 7–8 (identifying the seven shareholders of YMTC Holding as “state-owned enterprises”), 8 (stating the actual controller of the Yangtze River Industrial Investment Group is the “administration of Wuhan East Lake High-tech Development Zone”), 8 (stating the actual controller of the Yangtze River Industrial Group is the “Hubei Provincial State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission”). 8 More particularly, Patent Owner identifies YMTC’s parent as Yangtze Memory Technologies Holding Co., Ltd. (“YMTC Holding” or “YMTH”). Prelim. Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2021 (“YMTC’s Corporate Disclosure Statement), 2). estoppel would apply to either the Chinese government or YMTC Holding in this proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11, 18 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential); Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential) (stating that a petition may be corrected, including adding a real party in interest, without assigning a new filing date); see also Paper 9 (granting Petitioner’s unopposed motion to amend its mandatory notices to add a subsidiary of YMTI as an RPI without changing the filing date). Indeed, in Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, the Director instructed that the precedential SharkNinja decision held that it “best serves the Office’s interests in cost and efficiency to not resolve an RPI issue when it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 in that proceeding.” Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 76 at 4 (PTAB May 22, 2023) (“Unified Patents”) (vacating the Board’s RPI determination in the Final Written Decision as not necessary to resolve the proceeding, such as a time bar under § 315(b) or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)). Here, as neither the Chinese government nor YMTC Holding have been sued for patent infringement, Patent Owner has not shown that a determination of whether the Chinese government or YMTC Holding are an RPI, or are in privity with Petitioner, would impact the underlying proceeding or result in a time bar or estoppel. As such, we do not address Patent Owner’s RPI argument. We have also considered Patent Owner’s contention that the Chinese government may file additional IPR proceedings through other Chinese semiconductor companies, such as Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co., Ltd., if this petition is denied or unsuccessful and that real party in interest provisions seek to protect patent owners from harassment via “successive petitions by the same or related parties.” Prelim. Resp. 25; see also Unified Patents¸ Paper 76 at 5 (noting Petitioner’s argument that a non-binding advisory opinion on RPI would prejudice the asserted RPI parties by prejudging the issue without their participation). Concerns that future petitions may be filed by parties that are the same or related to Petitioner may be addressed in any such future proceeding. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)9 (“Consolidated TPG”), 55–63; General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 15–18 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) (recognizing the “potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks on patents” and setting forth factors to consider in exercising discretion on instituting inter partes review as to “follow-on” petitions challenging the same patent previously challenged in an inter partes review proceeding). As such, we do not deny institution for Petitioner’s alleged failure to list all RPIs.” slip op. at 19
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. To date, the Director has not provided any guidance as to when a panel should deny institution based on foreign policy or national security implications, applicable to the facts presented here. To the contrary, the USPTO has expressly determined that Board panels, in considering discretionary denial sought in a Preliminary Response filed on or before March 26, 2025, may not consider such factors. FAQs for Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management, FAQ 5, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/faqs/interim-processes-workload-management (stating, “The panel will not address any new factors outlined in the Process Memorandum”). Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution for this requested reason.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, materials science, or physics, or a closely related field, along with at least two years of experience in semiconductor fabrication and that a higher level of education might make up for less experience, and vice versa. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57–58). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner neither responds to Petitioner's proposed definition, nor provides a definition of its own. See Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’996 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,945,996 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00141 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under §325(d), finding the petition relied on previously presented art and did not show material error by the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“single §102 rejection based solely on Nishida.” Pet. § 325(d) Reply 3 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Petitioner argues that: The examiner seemingly failed to consider how it would have been obvious to combine Nishida (or any other reference of record, such as Orei) with knowledge in the art, including the fact that it was “well known to use double needle-bar raschel machines . . . to knit textile elements simultaneously with surrounding textile structures” (Pet., 37–38), and that simultaneous knitting would be obvious because it would “increase yield and reduce manufacturing steps,” as explained in the Petition and supporting evidence. See Pet., 42–44. Id. (alterations in original); see also id. at 4 (Petitioner arguing that the Examiner clearly erred for “failing to seemingly even consider if it would 10 We quote here, to give context to “otherwise,” both aspects that a petitioner must demonstrate in order to meet its burden. In order to determine whether Petitioner has met its overall burden, we need not and do not reach the issue of whether “the previously presented art [Nishida] teaches the limitations of the challenged claims.” Ecto World, Paper 13 at 6. have been obvious to combine Nishida with other prior art, or to implement Nishida using well-known techniques for simultaneously knitting textile elements and surrounding structures having differing textures.”). We do not find this argument persuasive. The cited portion of the Petition is the contention that Orei—not Nishida—would render obvious claim 1. See Pet. 37–38, 42–44 (Ground 1A). Thus, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Examiner erred in not making an obviousness rejection based on Nishida because the disputed limitation was purportedly well-known. Additionally, Petitioner’s support for the assertion that this limitation is well-known is not persuasive. The Petition parenthetically quotes from a source stating that plural “articles . . . can be simultaneously knitted side-by-side,” not that an article (a textile element) and surrounding textile structure are known to be simultaneously knitted. See Pet. 38 (quoting Ex. 1050, 201) (emphasis added); see also Pet. § 325(d) Reply 3 (Petitioner quoting its own argument and characterizing it as a “fact” (“The examiner seemingly failed to consider . . . the fact that it was ‘well known . . . “)).” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00189 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claim 19 on all asserted grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing; it declined discretionary denial based on the parallel district court case.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“proceeding was temporarily stayed pending consideration of Petitioner’s motion for a stay in light of the filed inter partes review proceedings. Prelim. Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2003). Subsequently, Patent Owner notified the Board that the parallel proceeding “was stayed pending resolution of related IPR proceedings.” Paper 10, 1; see also Ex. 3001 (district court order granting motion to stay case). Accordingly, we determine that Fintiv factor 1 weighs strongly against exercising our authority to deny institution. See Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology, Inc., IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 at 9 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2020) (precedential) (“The granting of a stay pending inter partes review has weighed strongly against exercising discretion to deny institution under NHK.”).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2–3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or teaching) 3D memory devices, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may substitute for professional experience).” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–37). Petitioner further contends that the “POSITA would also have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about 3D memory’s structure, its component parts, and how it operates.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–37). Patent Owner “takes no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art” as this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6. Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’666 patent, and we adopt it” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- 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 . . . 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; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claim 19. We also determine that the arguments and evidence of record do not support discretionary denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claim 19 of the ’666 patent.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,145,666 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00118 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–14 on all asserted obviousness grounds based on Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis.
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 . . . 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2023). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’164 patent. We also determine that the arguments and evidence of record do not support discretionary denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–14 of the ’164 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Foty, provides adequate reasons why using the pads immediately next to the saved areas in Yoshinaga’s Figure 6 as reference pads would have been a “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007); see Pet. 30–34 (and evidence cited therein). We acknowledge that Patent Owner disagrees, but find that Patent Owner’s disagreement raises issues of fact that are best resolved on a full trial record.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“(district court order granting motion to stay case). Accordingly, we determine that Fintiv factor 1 weighs strongly against exercising our authority to deny institution. See Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology, Inc., IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 at 9 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2020) (precedential) (“The granting of a stay pending inter partes review has weighed strongly against exercising discretion to deny institution under NHK.”)” slip op. at 36
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“§ 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,879,164 - New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00020 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 11–15 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of the instant Decision, “Nike applies New Balance’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based on the record presented, we determine that Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the scope and content of the ’932 patent and the asserted prior art, and, at this stage, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner acknowledges that it agreed to the constructions identified by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent Owner also notes that it agreed to these proposed constructions in the Related Litigation. Id. at 13. However, Patent Owner argues that for purposes of this Preliminary Response, “no terms require construction.” Id. (citing Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“limitation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Becker’s stiffer outer lining would have “restrict[ed] the mobility of the ankle, “not allow[ed] for tightening,” and known to “hav[e] the inner lining extend up above the outer lining.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122–123). Petitioner relies on conclusory reasoning grounded in hindsight to assert that it would have been obvious for “the skin layer [to be] absent from the ankle part of the knitted component,” as required by limitation [11.d]. The difficulty with Petitioner’s position is that neither Becker nor the other cited references disclose, teach, suggest, or otherwise provide motivation for “the skin layer being absent from the ankle part of the knitted component,” as claimed.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,898,932 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00151 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–27 unpatentable on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’636 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“25:5 (limitation 1a1: “a portion of the knitted component defining the upper”). “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (alteration in original). Thus, the claim language suggests that the “integral knit tongue” is a component distinct, at least to some degree, from the “upper.” See also Ex. 1001, 2:27–28 (the Specification stating that “[a] knitted component including the upper and an integral knit tongue is incorporated into the article of footwear.”). Limitation 1d reinforces this understanding by requiring the tongue to be joined to a portion of the throat area of the upper. See id. at 6:35–38 (the Specification indicating that the “throat area” is an area of the upper); cf. Ex. 2014, 18–19 (defining “Throat”: “The main opening of a shoe extending from the vamp [(the front part of a shoe upper that covers the toes and part of the foot)] to the ankle.”). In addition to suggesting that the tongue is a component distinct from the upper, the claim language indicates that the integral knit tongue extends through a throat area. See Ex. 1001, 25:10–11 (limitation 1b: “an integral knit tongue . . . extending through a throat area of the knitted component”). With that context, we turn to the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“claim language does not specify it, both parties contend that the “portion of the knitted component” constitutes the majority of the upper. See Pet. 25– 26, 30 (Petitioner applying in this ground that which it characterizes as Patent Owner’s claim construction position); Prelim. Resp. 43 (Patent Owner noting that the Specification states that “a majority of upper 120 is formed from a knitted component 130,” and contending that limitation 1a1 means that “a majority of the upper must be knitted.” (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:57–59)). Nevertheless, we determine for the following reasons that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that central textile element 60 of Dua-956 defines an upper within the meaning of the claims. See Pet. 26. Petitioner contends that, “[w]ith respect to what defines the upper, the ’636 patent discloses that the ‘upper generally extends over the instep and toe areas of the foot, along the medial and lateral sides of the foot, under the foot, and around the heel area of the foot.’” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:44–46, 6:66–67). Petitioner reasons that, “[a]s such, the ’636 patent describes the upper as extending around six parts of the foot: (1) the instep area, (2) the toe area, (3) the medial side, (4) the lateral side, (5) under the foot, and (6) the heel area.” Id. Applying this reasoning to the reference, Petitioner contends that, “[o]f the six upper parts identified in the ’636 patent, only two of them—the medial and lateral sides—are not formed by the central textile element 60,” and therefor “the majority of the parts of the upper are formed by the central element 60.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109). Petitioner provides an annotated versions of Figures 8B and 8C of Dua-956, reproduced below, to depict its contentions. Id. at 30. Above are Figures 8B and 8C of Dua-956—which are, respectively, perspective views depicting a second step and a third step in assembling the article of footwear (Ex. 1029, 3:41–45)—with central textile element 60 shaded green. As Petitioner concedes (Pet. 30) and as the annotated figures above show, central textile element 60 does not form the medial and lateral sides of the footwear. Thus, even if central textile element 60 constitutes the majority of parts of the upper, the sides of the upper remain undefined by the central textile element. Petitioner does not explain adequately how the upper is defined when the side components are missing. We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated adequately for institution that Dua-956 discloses “a portion of the knitted component defining the upper,” as recited in independent claim 1.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner contends that “both upper 70 and 30' are constructed as a single, unitary knit element that defines the upper, and it would have been obvious to construct upper 30 in the same manner.” Pet. 65. Petitioner next turns to Horii, asserting that “Horii discloses “shoes 1 that are characterized by the fact that the entire upper is constructed of a single piece of upper member 2 that is made through weft knitting or circular knitting.’” Id. at 67 (citing Ex. 1017, 9) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner reasons that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to manufacture Dua-956’s upper 30, for example, using the multilayer, single fabric of Horii because Horii’s single-piece knit upper would have provided upper 30 with a seamless structure.” Id. at 68. We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that “[c]onstructing Dua-956’s upper 30 as a single, unitary knit component would not materially change the analysis under Ground 1A.” Pet. 70. In Ground 1A, Petitioner contends that “‘forward portion 61’ of the central textile element 60 is an integral knit tongue that extends through a throat area of the knitted component in the assembled upper 30.” Id. at 34. During the assembly of footwear 10, forward portion 61 is flipped over the top of the footwear and the separate textile elements 40 and 50 (the sides of the footwear) are stitched to the lateral and medial edges (64a and 64b) of forward portion 61—the purported tongue. See Ex. 1029, 9:5–11, Figs. 8B, 8C. Petitioner does not explain adequately how, when modifying the embodiment used in Ground 1A to have a seamless top portion, the purported integral knit tongue is retained in that combination. See Pet. 70 (Petitioner asserting that the proposed combination would still have an exterior surface, an inner surface, lace elements 33, channels 44/54, and loops 35, “along with the other structures identified under Ground 1A,” but not specifically discussing the purported integral knit tongue.). We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that claims 1–6, 8–17, and 19–27 would have been obvious over Dua-596 alone or in combination with Horii.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,510,636 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00150 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Skechers did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 were unpatentable, principally because the asserted art did not disclose the construed integral knit tongue.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’562 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’562 patent in February 2012 would have been someone with at least a few years of experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used in making footwear, or a bachelor’s degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent academic or work experience, including in the footwear industry. EX1002, ¶68. Such a person of ordinary skill would have at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles. For individuals with a lower educational level, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s working experience compensates for any such lower educational level, or vice versa. See id. Pet. 22. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“inquiries.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the claims . . . [and t]he second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the properly construed claim to the prior art.” Id. Although an explicit claim construction analysis by a petitioner is not required in every case, a petition nonetheless must identify how the challenged claims are to be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable under the statutory grounds asserted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). And, being part of a prima facia case, such an analysis is part of Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its patentability challenges. Petitioner has failed to satisfy the threshold burden for every ground based on this construction.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find Petitioner’s contentions regarding the two annotated figures to be persuasive. First, those contentions, and the cited opinions of Dr. Adanur, are based on a claim construction that, as discussed above, we reject and for which neither party advocates. Second, Petitioner does not explain adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would discern, even with Petitioner’s added red ovals, a tongue distinct from the upper and tongue extending through the throat area. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s contentions regarding differing textures. See Pet. 32–33. Even if differing textures could rise to the level of distinguishing an integral knit tongue from the upper, the purported tongue texture 48" is not confined to the area identified by Petitioner as the tongue. See Pet. 31 (annotated Figure 11, reproduced above). For example, texture 48" outside of Petitioner’s oval appears to wrap approximately halfway around the ankle opening, which is not argued to be consistent with an ordinary artisan’s understanding of a tongue. Or, put another way, there is no indication that the portion of the 48" texture within Petitioner’s red oval, which purportedly represents the tongue, is distinguishable from the remaining portion of the 48" texture outside of the red oval. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the relatively large area depicted as having texture 48" to be an “integral knit tongue.” In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–4 as anticipated by Dua-592.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,060,562 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00119 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 2–4, 7–15, 17, 18, and 20 under § 314(a), finding a second petition unnecessary because its issues overlapped materially with the prior petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“The issue of multiple petitions resolves against Petitioner because Petitioner, not Patent Owner, bears the burden to show that an additional petition is “necessary.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 59. Institution of a second petition may be avoided where differences between the issues in two petitions are “not material or in dispute.” Id. at 60–61. In view of the overlap of assertions that are at issue in the prior-instituted trial and in the Petition in this proceeding, discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained why the issues in this second-filed petition differ from those in the prior-instituted proceeding in a material manner such that a second petition is necessary. Consequently, the factual record supports exercising our discretion to deny the second-filed petition under consideration in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,879,254
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.