- Permian Global Inc. / Manticore Fuels, LLC v. Fuel Automation Station, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2023-01236 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board did not reach the alternative Van Vliet, Shoap, and Hosecraft ground for claims 12–13.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Permian submits that one skilled in the art would have had either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–78). FAS responds that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Permian’s proposed definition appears consistent with the 1 US 2011/0197988 A1, published Aug. 18, 2011 (Ex. 1004, “Van Vliet”). 2 COXREELS, INC., Coxreels 1125 Series “Competitor” Hand Crank and Motorized Hose Reels, https://web.archive.org/web/20140408035634/ http://www.coxreels.com/products/hand-crank/1125-series, published Apr. 08, 2014 (Ex. 1005, “Coxreels”). 3 US 7,819,345 B2, issued Oct. 26, 2010 (Ex. 1006, “Shoap”). 4 HOSECRAFT USA, Clamps Accessories, https://web.archive.org/web/ 20130702084457/http:/www.hosecraftusa.com/accessory-category/ Hose_Clamps, published July 2, 2013 (Ex. 1007, “Hosecraft”). problems and solutions described in the challenged patent and the prior art of record. As such, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Permian.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Here, the specification of the ’118 patent does not suggest that the tube and sleeve are anything but physically separate and distinct structures— [T]he tube 62 may be a flexible elastomeric tube and the sleeve 64 may be a flexible fabric sleeve. The sleeve 64 is generally loosely arranged around the tube 62, although the sleeve 64 may closely fit on the tube 62 to prevent substantial slipping of the sleeve 64 relative to the tube 62 during use and handling. * * * In this example, the [sensor communication] line 66 is routed 40 through the hose 40 between (radially) the tube 62 and the sleeve 64. The sleeve 64 thus serves to secure and protect the line 66, and the sleeve 64 may limit spill and spewing if there is a hose 40 rupture. Ex. 1001, 5:21–44. Those descriptions in the specification—(1) that the tube and sleeve are made of different materials, one being “elastomeric” and the other “fabric,” (2) that the sleeve is “arranged around” the tube, (3) that a sensor line is routed “between” the tube and sleeve, and (4) that the sleeve “limit[s]” spillage in the event a rupture in the tube—clearly support that the tube and sleeve are physically separate structures such that the sleeve serves as a protective cover for the tube. Nowhere do we discern, nor does Permian explain, where the specification indicates that the tube and sleeve might also be one and the same structure. Thus, in light of the specification, we maintain that the only reasonable construction is that the tube and sleeve, as recited in claims 5, 10, and 15, are separate and distinct structures.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with FAS. Although indisputably the schematic of Van Vliet’s fuel delivery system shows the flow passage running through manifolds 36, 38 and hoses 24, nowhere do we discern that Van Vliet definitively discloses or otherwise suggests that the flow passage runs through reels 30, as required by claim 1. Indeed, even Permian’s expert acknowledges that Van Vliet’s schematic “is a high-level representation and is not intended to depict the physical appearance or form” of the various components. Ex. 1003 ¶ 112 n.146. At best, Van Vliet discloses that “hoses 24 are preferably stored on reels 30,” but is otherwise silent insofar as any flow stream or passage running through the reels. Ex. 1004 ¶ 15 (emphasis added). Indeed, in order for the reel to be a part of the system’s fluid stream, there would need to be some disclosure or suggestion in Van Vliet that hose 24 is actually connected to the reel as opposed to being merely stored on the reel. But there is no such disclosure. To the contrary, Van Vliet explains that “each hose 24 is connected to a fuel outlet 22 by a dry connection 60 and to a cap 26 by a dry connection 62.” Id. ¶ 22 (emphases added). In other words, the flow stream through Van Vliet’s hose 24 cannot be connected to reel 30 if the ends of the hose are connected to dry connections 60 and 62, which indisputably are not part of the reel. Thus, we reject the notion that Van Vliet’s reel 30 is “part of a single fluid stream that includes manifolds 36/38, fluid outlet 22, and hose 24,” as Permian surmises from simply looking at Van Vliet’s schematic. See Pet. Reply 3–4. As such, we find that Permian fails to demonstrate that Van Vliet’s discloses or otherwise suggests a flow passage “running through a respective one of the reels” or being connected “via a respective one of the reels,” as required by claim elements 1(e) and 1(f).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that one skilled in the art would have deemed Coxreels’s teachings to be unsuitable or unacceptable for Van Vliet’s fuel delivery system. In our view, FAS’s unsuitability argument focuses improperly on the physical incorporation into Van Vliet’s system of every component and material described in Coxreels. But the test for obviousness is whether “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention,” not whether the physical features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference. See Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, whether one reference can be incorporated in another is “basically irrelevant” since the test for obviousness asks only “whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Here, rather than relying on every feature of Coxreels, Permian makes clear that it is relying on Coxreels’s teaching of “a reel for storing hoses that has a built-in ‘fluid path.’” Pet. 36–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 149–152). More specifically, according to Permian, one skilled in the art “would have recognized advantages of the flow passage in Coxreels’ reels (e.g., ‘a non-crimping, flat smooth hose wrap’) to facilitate connection to the manifolds and hoses of Van Vliet’s system.” Pet. Reply 7. Thus, FAS’s argument of physical incorporation of an ancillary feature of Coxreels’s reel is irrelevant to Permian’s reliance on incorporating Coxreels’s teaching of a built-in flow passage running through a hose reel with Van Vliet’s system that already includes flow path connections suitable for diesel fuel. Moreover, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,815,118 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,815,118 - Permian Global Inc. / Manticore Fuels, LLC v. Fuel Automation Station, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2023-01237 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Van Vliet and Cable because the combination teaches the claimed arrangement, and the secondary-consideration evidence does not outweigh that showing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Permian proposes that one skilled in the art would have had either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field and at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 105). FAS responds that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. 1 US 2011/0197988 A1, published Aug. 18, 2011 (Ex. 1004, “Van Vliet”). 2 US 3,810,487, issued May 14, 1974 (Ex. 1005, “Cable”). 3 AFD PETROLEUM LTD., AFD Onsite Refueling Systems, http://web.archive.org/web/20150922012312/https://www.afdpetroleum.com /fuel/onsite_refuelling (Sept. 22, 2015), published Sep. 22, 2015 (Ex. 1007, “AFD”). 4 COXREELS, INC., Coxreels 1125 Series “Competitor” Hand Crank and Motorized Hose Reels, https://web.archive.org/web/20140408035634/ http://www.coxreels.com/products/hand-crank/1125-series, published Apr. 08, 2014 (Ex. 1008, “Coxreels”). 5 US 2018/0057348 A1, published Mar. 1, 2018 (Ex. 1006, “Lowrie”). Permian’s proposed definition appears consistent with the problems and solutions described in the challenged patent and the prior art of record. As such, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Permian.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Permian applies “the ordinary and customary meanings of the claims terms,” and, thus, maintains that “[e]xpress constructions are not required here.” Pet. 20–21. FAS likewise submits that “no constructions are necessary in order to resolve the issues at hand and that the claim terms be given their ordinary and customary meanings.” PO Resp. 8. The specification and prosecution history of the ’805 patent, as well as the asserted prior art, adequately inform us as to the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms. Thus, we need not construe any claim terms expressly, as we can decide patentability without further construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to controversy).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Though Cable and Van Vliet may have some different concerns and focuses, the mere existence of such differences does not alone negate Permian’s reason to combine Van Vliet and Cable. In fact, it is expected that different references would have different concerns and focuses. But, [w]hen a work is available in one field, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill. A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. Here, FAS does not contend that Van Vliet and Cable are in meaningfully different fields, but merely identifies several differences in focus and application. That is not enough to defeat Permian’s reason for the asserted combination. As Permian’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would consider that “[i]ncorporating Cable’s . . . reel configuration into Van Vliet’s mobile fuel delivery system would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 140.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“focus and application. That is not enough to defeat Permian’s reason for the asserted combination. As Permian’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would consider that “[i]ncorporating Cable’s . . . reel configuration into Van Vliet’s mobile fuel delivery system would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 140.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 9,586,805 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,586,805 - Permian Global Inc. / Manticore Fuels, LLC v. Fuel Automation Station, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2023-01238 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 11, and 12 as obvious over Van Vliet and Cable; claims 6–10 and 14–20 as obvious over combinations including LCR references; and claim 13 as obvious over Van Vliet, …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner notes the discrepancies between these two levels of skill and argues for that of Petitioner’s declarant. PO Resp. 10–13. Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s arguments. See generally, Reply. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’955 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe “those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, though the parties dispute the construction of certain claim terms (see PO Resp. 13–16; Reply 1–4; Sur-reply 1–3), resolution of these disputes is unnecessary to resolve the present controversy.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Differences in [Cable and Van Vliet’s] exemplary applications would not have discouraged a POSITA from combining their teachings. Reply 8. And: a POSITA is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and would consider Cable’s arrangement of equipment and reel components potentially useful in Vliet. See EX1003, ¶¶172-175; KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (cannot assume “that a [POSITA] attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem”). Id. at 9. We agree. Though the inventors of Cable and Van Vliet may have had different concerns and focuses, this does not negate Petitioner’s argument that the combination is a simple substitution with predictable results. In fact, it is expected that different references would have different concerns and focuses. But, this fact does not of itself render the combination non-obvious. The Supreme Court’s guidance in KSR is instructive as to why Petitioner has the better argument. When a work is available in one field, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. A court use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,974,955 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,974,955 - Robert Bosch LLC / Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00292 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed substantially constant hydraulic-fluid thickness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Westport does not dispute Bosch’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4 (quoting Pet. 23). Based on our review, we see no reason not to adopt Bosch’s undisputed definition of the level of skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the prior art and the specification of the ’829 patent.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those claim terms “that are in controversy” need be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, there does not appear to be a dispute over the meaning of any claim terms. And, after reviewing the record, we do not perceive the need to expressly construe any particular claim term in order to determine patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In contrast, the testimony of Bosch’s expert ignores Klügl’s express teachings and is fraught with contradictions that undermine the weight of that testimony. While this case may be seen as a battle of the experts over their respective interpretations of Klügl, it is clear that Bosch’s expert loses given his inability to credibly explain his opinions during cross-examination. For instance, despite opining in his declaration that Klügl satisfies claim element 1(e) because “the fluid in chamber 5 is held in place by a membrane 6 and moves through a cylindrical space of constant width and unchanging shape” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 220 (emphasis added)), surprisingly, Bosch’s expert could not, or would not, provide his opinion when asked on cross-examination about the meaning of “flexible” and “membrane” in the context of Klügl’s disclosure— Q. [By Westport’s counsel] What’s your understanding what flexible means in the context of the Klugl reference? . . . A. [By Bosch’s expert] Again, I haven’t been asked to offer a formal opinion of what flexible means in light of this, but if you want to talk about a specific -- excuse me -- part of the document, I’d be happy to. Q. What is a membrane? A. Usually, it’s a thin sheet of material but I haven’t formed a formal opinion on it. Q. What is a flexible membrane? A. Again, I haven’t offered a formal opinion what a flexible membrane is.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Westport. That is because Bosch’s argument that Klügl’s hydraulic fluid maintains substantially constant thickness is premised on the erroneous belief that Klügl’s membrane 6 will not flex. But, as Westport correctly notes, Klügl expressly teaches that membrane 6 is “flexible.” See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 7:45–47 (“[F]lexible membranes 6, 8, 26 . . . have a progressive characteristic curve of the spring force in relation to the spring deflection.”), 7:68–9:31 (repeatedly referencing “first flexible element (6)” and “first flexible membrane (6)”). Consistent with this flexibility, Klügl explains that membrane 6 flexes to maintain contact with drive piston 3, stating specifically that “in the rest position without being actuated due to thermal influences or signs of aging, . . . the first membrane 6 is moved in the direction of the drive piston 3” or “is pushed in by the drive piston 3 so that the transmission medium is pressed through the throttle 10 into the compensation chamber 7.” Ex. 1006, 3:63–4:10 (emphases added). And because Klügl’s membrane 6 flexes when transmission module 2 is unactuated, it follows that membrane 6 will also flex when transmission module 2 is actuated.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 6,298,829 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,298,829 - Robert Bosch LLC / Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00293 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 13, 14, 17–21, and 26–28, 41 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed hydraulic link limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends: A POSITA in the technology field of the ’138 patent would have had a degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2 years of professional experience working with the design and development of fuel injection systems for internal combustion engines or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience. (See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 37–39, 41.) This POSITA would be aware of and generally knowledgeable about how fuel injector valves are structured and operate, and how they are used to deliver fuel to an engine’s combustion chambers. (Id., ¶ 40.) Pet. 23. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. See PO Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Based on the complete record, we do not perceive the need to construe any claim limitation. Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe the claim preambles here where the construction is not ‘material to the [obviousness] dispute.’” (citations omitted, alteration in original)).” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“mere fact” that Klügl labels the membrane as “flexible.” As discussed, Patent Owner explains Klügl teaches membrane 6 is flexible and that membrane 6 deflects and moves in response to fluid pressure in chamber 5 and contact with piston 3. PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:63–4:10). Additionally, Dr. Atkinson’s testimony is consistent with Klügl’s disclosure. Dr. Atkinson, explains that “[i]n all embodiments shown, Klügl only ever specifies and describes membrane 6 as a “flexible” membrane or element acknowledging that this flexibility is a necessary and desired feature of its intended purpose and behavior.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 80. With this underlying disclosure in mind, Dr. Atkinson further reasons that a flexible membrane will tend to deform longitudinally upward where it contacts the drive piston and bulge outward based on the structure disclosed in Figure 1. See id. ¶¶ 63, 66–67, 77–81, 87. In contrast, Dr. Quinlan’s testimony in many instances, including this one, is substantively incomplete and fraught with contradictions that undermine the weight of his testimony. For example, at his cross- examination deposition, he testified that he had seen and worked with membranes, but could not provide his opinion on the meaning of “flexible” or “membrane” as disclosed in Klügl. See Ex. 2025, 47:14–48:1. Dr. Quinlan was then directed to column 8 in Klügl, where Klügl teaches among other things that “the transmission module (2) has a pressure chamber (5), which is filled with a transmission medium and is delimited by a first flexible membrane (6).” See id. at 65:5–15; Ex. 1006, 8:44–46 (emphasis added). Provided below is the exchange between Patent Owner’s counsel and Dr. Quinlan regarding this express disclosure: slip op. at 37
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Figure 1 of Klügl depicts an injection valve including housing 12 and piezoelectric actuator 1, which is arranged between upper stop 13 and transmission module 2. Ex. 1006, 1:47–51. We observe that transmission module 2 includes pressure chamber 5 that is at least partially filled with hydraulic fluid and is “delimited” by first membrane 6. Id. at 1:60–62, 1:68–2:2. Throttle or connecting bore 10 connects pressure chamber 5 to compensation chamber 7. Id. at 1:62–66. The connecting bore or throttle allows transmission fluid to flow between pressure chamber 5 and compensation chamber 7. Id. at 3:56–4:10. We further note that Klügl expressly teaches first membrane 6 is “flexible.” Ex. 1006, 7:45–47 (“[F]lexible membranes 6, 8, 26 . . . have a progressive characteristic curve of the spring force in relation to the spring deflection.”). Indeed, consistent with this flexibility, Klügl explains that membrane 6 “moves” to maintain contact with drive piston 3. Specifically, Klügl teaches: [i]f the piezoelectric actuator 1 shortens in the rest position without being actuated due to thermal influences or signs of aging in relation to the housing 12, the spring plate 8 pushes the transmission medium from the compensation chamber 7 via the throttle 10 into the pressure chamber 5, so that the first membrane 6 is moved in the direction of the drive piston 3 and, as a result, the drive piston 3 bears against the first membrane 6 despite the shortening of the piezoelectric actuator 1. However, if the distance between the piezoelectric actuator 1 and the drive piston 3 is reduced, the first membrane 6 is pushed in by the drive piston 3 so that the transmission medium is pressed through the throttle 10 into the compensation chamber 7 against the spring force of the spring plate 8. As a result, the drive piston 3 is always in contact with the first membrane 6 in this case as well. Id. at 3:63–4:10 (emphases added).” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 6,575,138 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,575,138 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–12 and 19–28 over Linnarsson, McCloskey, and ordinary skill; claims 13–18 over those references plus McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 16 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 22. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014-00148, Paper 429 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not directly dispute Petitioner’s proposal but does offer its own proposal. PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner proposes that the skilled artisan “would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, molecular genetics, biochemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with 7 Exhibit 1002 is a declaration by Petitioner’s witness, Gregory Cooper, Ph.D. two years of academic, research, or industry experience in the field of genomic or transcriptome sequencing.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶25–268). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’013 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,697,013 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,697,013 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2025 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–4, 6–11, 20, and 23–25 over Linnarsson and McCloskey; claims 5, 12, 21, 22, and 26 with ordinary-skill knowledge; claims 13–19 with McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s in the prior sentence and in the subtitle to the relevant portion of its Objection. Id. requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 29. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014- 00148, Paper 4210 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded 10 Patent Owner actually cited to “Pap.41” of Standard Innovation. PO Mot. To Exclude 4. There is no Paper 41 in the record of that case. We presume Patent Owner intended to cite Paper 42, which is the final written decision in that case. by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 15 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1. That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we find Petitioner’s rationale that a skilled artisan would have made the proposed combination to solve the problem of amplification bias persuasive.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 10,240,197 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,240,197 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00842 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–29 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and granted EndyMed’s motion to join the ’386 IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the foregoing reasons, the underlying premise of Serendia’s arguments here and in the ’386 IPR remains substantially the same. Thus, for the same reasons discussed in our decision instituting the ’386 IPR, we find that EndyMed demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of challenged claims 1–29 of the ’836 patent. See ’386 IPR, Paper 18. That is not to say, however, that Serendia may not ultimately persuade us at trial of the deficiency of EndyMed’s showing based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“evidences nonobviousness for four different patents. In this situation, a presumption of nexus is appropriate only if patent owner demonstrates that the claims of all four patents “generally cover the same invention.” See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377 (“Where a product embodies claims from two patents, a presumption of nexus can be appropriate only if the claims of both patents generally cover the same invention.”). “The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.” Id. at 1378 (citation omitted). “In such situations, the patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, Serendia does not demonstrate that the four different patents cover the same invention. See Prelim. Resp. 59–74. Indeed, Serendia does not address U.S. Patents 9,775,774, 9,320,536, and 10,869,812 at all. See id. That Serendia separately sought patent protection for each of these four patents suggests that these patents do not generally cover the same invention. Cf Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378 (“The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.”). We made a similar determination in the ’386 IPR. See, e.g., ’386 IPR, Paper 18 at 38 (“Patent Owner fails to set forth which patents ‘generally cover’ the Sylfirm X device.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“We disagree with Serendia. EndyMed need not justify its delay where, as here, EndyMed satisfies the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely. Serendia also argues that joinder should be denied due to duplicative efforts with the parallel Delaware litigation, which involves the same parties and patent as here. See PO Opp. 3–4. That argument fails for the simple reason that EndyMed submits a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the Delaware litigation the same grounds that are asserted in the petition here or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised here. See Pet. Reply 1–2. A Sotera stipulation mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts, and we decline to discretionarily decline institution where a petitioner makes such a stipulation. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7–8. Thus, we will not discretionarily deny the petition or motion for joinder on the basis of the parallel Delaware litigation.8” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,480,836 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01137 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–7 and 9–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Our consideration of discretionary denials is guided by the Director’s Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued on June 21, 2022 (“Memorandum”).7 The Memorandum states that, consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Massimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential), “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memorandum, 3 (footnote and emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c. Discussion At this stage, we preliminarily determine Petitioner has shown that Nakajima teaches or reasonably suggests each element of claim 1, but we encourage the parties to develop the record regarding the meaning of “pivotal about an axis” as recited in Limitation 1[b][3][i] during the trial phase. As cited by Petitioner, from the closed position, for example, the Nakajima’s mouthpiece would appear to move based on clockwise rotation about hinge shaft 19. Pet. 35. Patent Owner appears correct that at some point in the opening (or closing) process, Nakajima’s mouthpiece additionally moves based on rotation about protrusions 25. Prelim. Resp. 44–45. At this stage, we preliminarily determine that such additional rotation is not foreclosed by the plain language of the claims.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art 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. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). Patent Owner states that it applies the level of skill set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 35. At this stage, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’255 patent. D. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner contends that “adapted to” in independent claims 1 and 20 means “‘designed or configured to’ and is not satisfied by mere hypothetical capability.” Prelim. Resp. 36; see Prelim. Resp. 36–41. We address Patent Owner’s arguments below with our discussion of Petitioner’s Ribartis-based arguments. Based on the current record, however, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). E. Alleged Obviousness” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,676,255 - PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01179 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–25; it found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4–11, 16–20, and 22–24 are obvious over Waldner and Dynatek.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on our preliminary review, we agree with Solaris that Waldner discloses each of the assemblies, as claimed, except for the limitation requiring that the “inboard” and “outboard” segments of the conveyor extension assembly be “pivotally connected” to each other “about a substantially vertical axis,” as recited in claim elements 1(j) and 1(k). See Pet. 25–46 (mapping elements 1(a)–1(h) to Waldner and elements 1(i)–1(k) to Waldner and Dynatek).7 For those missing claim limitations, Solaris relies on Dynatek’s express teaching of constructing a conveyor belt assembly for granular materials from pivotally-connected segments capable of rotating relative to one another about a vertical axis. See id. at 43–46 (citing Ex, 1005, at 2). In doing so, Solaris provides persuasive reasoning for why a skilled artisan would have considered it obvious “to substitute” Dynatek’s two-part conveyor assembly for Waldner’s two-part conveyor chute and/or “to modify” Waldner’s two-part conveyor chute with Dynatek’s teaching of coupling the two-parts of a conveyor assembly to be pivotally connected. See id. at 26–28. Given Solaris’s persuasive and detailed showing at this stage, we find that Solaris demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“Based on our preliminary review, we agree with Solaris that Waldner discloses each of the assemblies, as claimed, except for the limitation requiring that the “inboard” and “outboard” segments of the conveyor extension assembly be “pivotally connected” to each other “about a substantially vertical axis,” as recited in claim elements 1(j) and 1(k). See Pet. 25–46 (mapping elements 1(a)–1(h) to Waldner and elements 1(i)–1(k) to Waldner and Dynatek).7 For those missing claim limitations, Solaris relies on Dynatek’s express teaching of constructing a conveyor belt assembly for granular materials from pivotally-connected segments capable of rotating relative to one another about a vertical axis. See id. at 43–46 (citing Ex, 1005, at 2). In doing so, Solaris provides persuasive reasoning for why a skilled artisan would have considered it obvious “to substitute” Dynatek’s two-part conveyor assembly for Waldner’s two-part conveyor chute and/or “to modify” Waldner’s two-part conveyor chute with Dynatek’s teaching of coupling the two-parts of a conveyor assembly to be pivotally connected. See id. at 26–28. Given Solaris’s persuasive and detailed showing at this stage, we find that Solaris demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Based on our preliminary review, we agree with Solaris that Waldner discloses each of the assemblies, as claimed, except for the limitation requiring that the “inboard” and “outboard” segments of the conveyor extension assembly be “pivotally connected” to each other “about a substantially vertical axis,” as recited in claim elements 1(j) and 1(k). See Pet. 25–46 (mapping elements 1(a)–1(h) to Waldner and elements 1(i)–1(k) to Waldner and Dynatek).7 For those missing claim limitations, Solaris relies on Dynatek’s express teaching of constructing a conveyor belt assembly for granular materials from pivotally-connected segments capable of rotating relative to one another about a vertical axis. See id. at 43–46 (citing Ex, 1005, at 2). In doing so, Solaris provides persuasive reasoning for why a skilled artisan would have considered it obvious “to substitute” Dynatek’s two-part conveyor assembly for Waldner’s two-part conveyor chute and/or “to modify” Waldner’s two-part conveyor chute with Dynatek’s teaching of coupling the two-parts of a conveyor assembly to be pivotally connected. See id. at 26–28. Given Solaris’s persuasive and detailed showing at this stage, we find” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,780,689
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.