- W-W Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2020-01471 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 based on the combinations listed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied
“1 The Supplemental Response updated the following: (1) the exhibit list with a corrected description for Exhibit 2007, (2) the Conclusion (Part 8) of the Response to include a completed signature section, and (3) an updated Certificate of Compliance to confirm the word count of the Response. PO Supp. Resp. 2. 2 A combined oral hearing was held for this proceeding and related proceeding IPR2020-01470. 3 Petitioner served and then filed, at our request, a list of objections to Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibits. Paper 37; see Tr. 6:3–26 (discussing Petitioner’s objections). As we explained at the oral hearing, “although the demonstratives are a useful aide during the oral hearing, we do not rely on them when rendering a final written decision. We rely on the arguments raised in the briefing and the evidence submitted in each case.” Tr. 6:11–15.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner
“by Petitioner. In particular, Petitioner “substitut[es] the triggering mechanism and methodology of Jeong for the tripwire triggering mechanism known from the TexasBoars Combination” and asserts that such substitution “would yield predic[t]able results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 135). The success identified by Petitioner is making the modifications proposed—substituting or adding the teachings of Jeong to TB1/TB2 to create a remotely controlled, monitored/detected corral trap. Nothing about these modifications has anything to do with trap-shyness or conditioning of the animals as Patent Owner contends. Rather, the success has to do with whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination. And, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by Dr. Ditchkoff’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 135) as well as Jeong itself because Jeong effectively takes a trap and adds the same features (remote control and detection) that Petitioner proposes to add to TB1 and TB2 (see Pet. 20 (relying on Jeong and the stated benefits therein)). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to make the modifications proposed and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 63
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“by Petitioner. In particular, Petitioner “substitut[es] the triggering mechanism and methodology of Jeong for the tripwire triggering mechanism known from the TexasBoars Combination” and asserts that such substitution “would yield predic[t]able results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 135). The success identified by Petitioner is making the modifications proposed—substituting or adding the teachings of Jeong to TB1/TB2 to create a remotely controlled, monitored/detected corral trap. Nothing about these modifications has anything to do with trap-shyness or conditioning of the animals as Patent Owner contends. Rather, the success has to do with whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination. And, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by Dr. Ditchkoff’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 135) as well as Jeong itself because Jeong effectively takes a trap and adds the same features (remote control and detection) that Petitioner proposes to add to TB1 and TB2 (see Pet. 20 (relying on Jeong and the stated benefits therein)). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to make the modifications proposed and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 63
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, the only claim for which we consider the question of nexus is claim 1.58” slip op. at 127
Patent outcomesUS 10,098,339 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,098,339 - W-W Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2020-01470 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed combinations of TB1, TB2, Jeong, and, where applicable, Vorhies, Silsby, and Kimura.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“1 A combined oral hearing was held for this proceeding and related proceeding IPR2020-01471. 2 Petitioner served and then filed, at our request, a list of objections to Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibits. Paper 34; see Tr. 6:3–26 (discussing Petitioner’s objections). As we explained at the oral hearing, “although the demonstratives are a useful aide during the oral hearing, we do not rely on them when rendering a final written decision. We rely on the arguments raised in the briefing and the evidence submitted in each case.” Tr. 6:11–15. Thus, we have noted Petitioner’s objections, but we dismiss them as moot because demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and we do not rely on them in rendering this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Challenged Claims. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Having reviewed the arguments and the supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Challenged Claims of the ’228 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“by Petitioner. In particular, Petitioner “substitut[es] the triggering mechanism and methodology of Jeong for the tripwire triggering mechanism known from the TexasBoars Combination” and asserts that such substitution “would yield predic[t]able results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 110). The success identified by Petitioner is making the modifications proposed—substituting or adding the teachings of Jeong to TB1/TB2 to create a remotely controlled, detected corral trap. Nothing about these modifications has anything to do with trap-shyness or conditioning of the animals as Patent Owner contends. Rather, the success has to do with whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination. And, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by Dr. Ditchkoff’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 110) as well as Jeong itself because Jeong effectively takes a trap and adds the same features and method (remote control and detection) that Petitioner proposes to add to TB1 and TB2 (see Pet. 32 (relying on Jeong and the stated benefits therein)). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to make the modifications proposed and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 70
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, the only claim for which we consider the question of nexus is claim 1.59” slip op. at 128
Patent outcomesUS 9,814,228 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,814,228 - Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc. v. Kansas State University Research FoundationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2022 · PGR2020-00076 · APJ Erica A Franklin · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“As noted by the Drs. Nordgren and HogenEsch, the differences in these descriptions are “relatively minor.” See Ex. 1038, 238:21–24; Ex. 1039 ¶ 42. Dr. Nordgren explains that even under the higher skill level required by Patent Owner’s description of a POSITA, his opinions would not change. Id. at 1039 ¶ 42. Based upon our review, the differences in Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed definitions do not impact Petitioner’s grounds for unpatentability or Patent Owner’s responsive arguments. Nor does our consideration of the issues presented turn on which proposed definition is applied. In any event, having considered the evidence and the arguments, we find Patent Owner’s rationale for its more narrow description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be persuasive and Patent Owner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art, while maintaining that the prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s proposed construction is actually a subject matter eligibility argument. PO Resp. 23. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he term ‘porcine circovirus type 3 recombinant protein’ has a plain and ordinary meaning of ‘genetically engineered PCV3 protein.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2052 ¶¶ 91–92). Having considered the positions of both parties, and the evidence of record, we find that for purposes of this Decision, the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “porcine circovirus type 3 recombinant protein,” is a PCV3 protein obtained by genetic engineering, and specifically by recombinant technology, wherein the recombinant protein may either have the same structure and same amino acid sequence as variation therein. See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 217–218; Ex. 1038, 264:2–9, 266:13– 267:3). 2.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts that “[a] POSITA would have understood ‘the nucleotide sequence encoding [ORF1, ORF2 or ORF3]’ to mean ‘a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with SEQ ID NOS. 3, 5, or 7 or encoding a sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with SEQ ID NOS. 4, 6 or 8.’” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶¶ 93–96). In support of that position, Patent Owner refers to the following Specification description: [a] preferred PCV3 ORF2 protein is that of SEQ ID NO. 6, but it is understood by those of skill in the art that this sequence, as well as those for ORF1 and ORF3 could vary by as much as 10% in sequence homology and still retain the antigenic characteristics that render it useful in immunogenic compositions. Patent Owner asserts, according to that Specification description, “the sequences described and identified by SEQ ID Nos. in the patent for PCV3 ORF1, ORF2 and ORF3 are representative sequences, and ‘ORF1,’ ‘ORF2’ and ‘ORF3’ in the patent also refers to those sequences with at least 90% sequence homology.” Id. (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 95; Ex. 2006, 107:9–17). Further, Patent Owner asserts this interpretation is consistent with the language of the other claims. In particular, Patent Owner refers to the limitation in claim 1 reciting that the composition comprises a PCV3 recombinant protein selected from “ORF1, ORF2 and ORF3, wherein said protein is encoded by a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with a sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO. 3, SEQ ID NO. 5, SEQ ID NO. 7.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 71:14–21). Having considered the positions of the parties, and the evidence of record, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification provides clarity and meaning for the use of the terms ORF1, ORF2, and ORF3, which are not set forth or defined in claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, or in claim 5. Petitioner, in its alternative argument regarding the construction of the phrase involving those terms in claim 5, agrees to some extent. See Pet. 26. For purposes of this Decision, and for the reasons discussed by Patent Owner, we construe the claim phrase “nucleotide sequence encoding ORF1, . . . ORF2, and . . . ORF3” recited in claim 5 as meaning “a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with SEQ ID NOS. 3, 5, or 7 or encoding a sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with SEQ ID NOS. 4, 6 or 8.”” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“We do not find that description to be adequate. Essentially, the Specification description that the sequences for PCV3 ORF 1, 2, and 3, could vary by as much as 10% sequence homology just rephrases what is claimed in terms of those sequences having at least 90% sequence homology, adding only that antigenic characteristics are retained that render it useful for immunogenic compositions. A claim, however, “does not become more descriptive by its repetition,” see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350 (quoting Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568), and “a definition of a useful result rather than a definition of what achieves that result” does not sufficiently Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). As noted by Petitioner and Dr. Nordgren, the ’351 patent discloses nucleotide and amino acid sequences corresponding only to the naturally-occurring PCV3 ORFs 1–3. PO Resp. 52; Ex. 1026 ¶ 168. While those sequences may be characterized as “reference” sequences, as they reflect sequences with 100% homology with PCV3 ORFs 1–3, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that they are “representative” sequences for the broad range of sequences claimed. We find that the Specification does not reasonably convey that the inventor made or was otherwise in possession of any of the remaining members of the genus with at least 90% sequence or amino acid homology with ORFs 1–3. PO Resp. 53; Ex. 1026 ¶ 168. We find that Dr. Nordgren credibly characterizes the Specification, as follows: [T]he ’351 Patent outlines a preliminary research plan to eventually make and use the broad range of claimed proteins. That is, the inventor provides a number of DNA and primer sequences that could be used to clone homologous DNA sequences into an expression vector, and theorizes that proteins expressed from sequences having 90% sequence homology will be antigenic. Critically, however, the ’351 Patent does not disclose which of the thousands of different claimed homologous sequences, if any, the inventor possessed, much less had discovered to be antigenic. Instead, the inventor merely proposes, without any factual support, that PCV3-derived amino acid sequences “could vary by as much as 10% in sequence homology and still retain the[ir] antigenic characteristics.” Ex. 1001 at 8:49-56. A POSITA would not credit that unsupported speculation, and therefore would not believe that the inventors possessed such a wide range of proteins.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,450,351 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,450,351 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01265 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 3 is unpatentable under §103 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet; the Board did not reach the Tayloe and Kawada ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“proposes that it be construed to mean “an element that stores a nonnegligible amount of energy from an input electromagnetic (EM) signal.” Pet. Reply 10. Petitioner contends that its proposed construction expressly tracks the definition provided in the ’551 patent for “storage element,” which the parties agree is synonymous with “storage module.” Id.; see id. at 10 n.2. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the ’551 patent states: “Storage modules . . . refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:65–67). Petitioner notes that the ’551 patent also states that “the ‘goal of the storage modules’ is ‘to store non-negligible amounts of energy transferred from the EM signal’” and that the patent “specifically distinguishes storage elements from holding elements on this basis.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:59–67 (“Holding modules . . . identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of ‘holding’ a voltage value. Storage modules . . . on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.”)). Thus, Petitioner contends “‘storage element’ should be construed accordingly.” Id. at 11 (citation omitted).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Owner fails to “establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220. In particular, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Steer makes any attempt to establish nexus with the elements recited in claim 3 based on a presumption of co-extensiveness or otherwise. Each instance in which Dr. Steer mentions claim 3, he only ties the discussion to energy transfer systems or energy sampling in general, which is based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction that we do not adopt. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 229 (“energy transfer (energy sampling) system – of claim 3”), 230 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 233 (“[u]sing energy sampling . . . as set forth in claim 3”), 234 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 235 (same), 236 (same), 237 (“using the energy transfer (energy sampling) system of claim 3”), 238 (same), 239 (“energy sampling system as set forth in claim 3”). Thus, we find that Patent Owner fails to establish that a presumption of nexus is warranted and similarly fails to establish nexus absent the presumption. Accordingly, for the reasons above, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden to establish nexus. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (patent owner “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists”).” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Engle Grange, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · IPR2020-01334 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable over McCullough and DeBono under §103; the Board did not reach the other asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“proposed “a combined system that implements DeBono’s teaching into McCullough’s key fob system,” not that DeBono teaches a second authentication step using a key fob. Id. (citing PO Resp. 21–22; Pet. 41–46, 48–60). Petitioner explains that it “never proposed bodily incorporating DeBono’s biometric shifter into McCullough’s system, and accordingly, [Patent Owner’s] arguments as to DeBono alone miss the mark.” Id. at 14 (citing Pet. 41–46, 53). Petitioner reiterates that its “actual combination of McCullough and DeBono” “perform[s] McCullough’s already-disclosed key fob authentication in the same way a second time during gear shift, as taught by DeBono.” Id.” slip op. at 53
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsOther
“4. Objective Considerations of Nonobviousness Neither party presents evidence of objective considerations of” slip op. at 67
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“that “[t]o the extent the preamble is limiting, McCullough in view of DeBono and Chung discloses [it], or at least renders [it] obvious.” Pet. 46. The preamble of claim 1 is written in Jepson form. “Jepson form allows a patentee to use the preamble to recite ‘elements or steps of the claimed invention which are conventional or known.’” Epcon Gas Sys. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Kegel Co. v. AMF Bowling, Inc., 127 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(e) (describing the structure of a Jepson claim). Because a Jepson claim “evidences the intention to use the preamble to define, in part, the structural elements of [a] claimed invention,” the Federal Circuit has held that a “preamble is a limitation in a Jepson-type claim.” Epcon Gas, 279 F.3d at 1029 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we determine that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting and address it herein.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,548,645 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,548,645 - Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01040 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Field; the Board did not reach the alternative Strong and Field ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“As we noted in the Institution Decision, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art that was very similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Prelim. Resp. 28). On the preliminary record at that time, we found both parties’ proposals consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. Id. (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). And, on that record, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have “a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three to five years of academic or industry experience in the fields of data storage, data backup, data restoration, data replication and deduplication, and/or data synchronization.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“which states: “A method of synchronizing electronic data stored on a first client device with at least a second client device.” Ex. 1001, 19:8–9. Petitioner contends the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting because it states a purpose or intended use for the method recited and neither the term synchronizing nor the full preamble is referenced again in other claim elements. Pet. 10 (citing Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods, Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the preamble of claim 1 does not limit the scope of the claim. See Inst. Dec. 18–19. Patent Owner does not contest that preliminary determination in its Response and confirmed at the oral hearing that it does not contend the preamble is limiting. See generally PO Resp.; Tr. 107:15– 16 (confirming that Patent Owner does not assert the preamble is limiting). Accordingly, for the reasons explained in our Institution Decision and because the parties agree, we maintain our preliminary determination and reaffirm that the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting, and, therefore, we need not expressly construe it.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“unclear. Nonetheless, we find that Field teaches receiving a first “inventory” for the reasons explained by Petitioner and based on our construction of “inventory” at least because Field receives an itemized list of electronic data in the form of one or more signatures. Thus, since Field teaches an “inventory,” we do not agree with Patent Owner that Field teaches away from an “inventory.” Additionally, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Patent Owner, however, fails to identify, and we do not discern, any indication in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from following Field’s teachings or modifying Field as proposed by Petitioner. Further, to this latter point, we do not discern any specific argument by Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Field as Petitioner proposes, aside from Patent Owner’s assertions of teaching away.22 Considering the complete record before us, for the reasons explained above we find that Petitioner has established that Field teaches or suggests limitation 1A.1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to modify Field as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,146 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,146 - Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01039 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Field and Anderson; claim 5 over Field, Anderson, and Ackerman; and claim 11 over Field, Anderson, and Coombs.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we find that the complete record does not support” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“away and (2) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Field in light of potential inefficiencies. With respect to whether Field teaches away, Patent Owner’s argument is premised, in part, on a requirement derived from its proposed construction of “inventory”—that the claimed “inventory” must include additional data, such as filenames and directories. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. Similar to Patent Owner’s earlier argument of a teaching away, Patent Owner fails to identify anything in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from creating an inventory, as properly construed. Accordingly, we do not find that Field teaches away from using or creating an inventory.” slip op. at 69
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Weighing the Graham Factors On balance, considering the complete record before us, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Field, Anderson, and Coombs would have rendered the subject matter of claim 11 of the ’545 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 99
Patent outcomesUS 9,037,545 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,037,545 - Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00449 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch because the combination teaches the claimed elements and increased headroom supplied a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“applicant acted as a lexicographer as to the term “stretching.” We determine that the Specification supports an understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning as extending or spreading out rather than as “make taut” or in “tension.” As argued by Petitioner, “[t]here is no description requiring that a roof be made taut or placed under tension” and, “[t]o the contrary, the specification consistently uses the word ‘stretch’ to describe extending or spreading out.” Pet. Reply 11. For example, in the eleven instances the Specification uses some form of the word “stretch” (aside from in claim 1), six instances relate to “stretching” the frame (or some component of the frame), rather than the roof. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)), 3:15–19 (“When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame. When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above, the sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching the two 14 Under the same logic, Patent Owner’s construction of “stretching” as “make taut” should be rejected because it would render superfluous the “sustaining” requirement in that any “center pole” that makes taut a tent’s roof would also sustain it. Cf. PO Sur-reply 5. types of ribs 20 and 30.” (emphasis added)), 3:23–24 (discussing how “the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the support links 40” (emphasis added)), 3:29–30 (discussing “[w]hen the tent is pitched with the frame being fully stretched as described above” (emphasis added)), 4:12–14 (“When the frame is stretched so as to pitch a tent, the center pole is fully moved upwardly along with the center pole ribs.” (emphasis added)). These instances do not align with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “stretching” as in “tension” or “make taut.” We find particularly supportive of the above-determined construction that in one of those six instances, the Specification directly contrasts—using a disjunctive “or”—“stretchable” with “collapsible.” See Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“On the full record developed at trial, we determine that the increased total ceiling height—i.e., “headroom” as used in the Petition—provides adequate “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” based on the proposed modification. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the unmodified version of Yang is most similar to the middle example in Petitioner’s graphic above, as it has no structure underneath the tent roof (as roof support bars 7 and groove joints 6 are essentially at the height of the canopy itself). Compare Pet. Reply 20, with Ex. 1004, Fig. 4. The modified device—Yang modified with apex portion 50 of Lynch—is most similar to the rightmost example in Petitioner’s graphic, as the height of the canopy has been increased at least somewhat as compared to the middle example. See Pet. Reply 20; see also PO Resp. 24 (acknowledging that the proposed modification would “increase the height of the roof (the ceiling height)”). The record supports that this increased total ceiling height—even if only for certain locations where a person might stand—would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang based on Lynch as proposed. This determination is supported by the testimony of Dr. Klopp, who states that “[i]ncreased headroom in some places under a tent is desirable for stationary users, especially for users of above average height.” Klopp Reply Decl. ¶ 113, cited at Pet. Reply 19.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 5,944,040 - Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2020-01026 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “Center Pole” Petitioner proposes to construe “center pole” in element 1A as a “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Under the claim construction standard applied in this proceeding, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). For the reasons below, we view the plain and ordinary meaning of “stretching” on the complete record here as extending or spreading out, in line with portions of Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“the context of its own invention, “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame,” it is important to note that the Figure 3 embodiment in Lynch includes Velcro fasteners 35 that secure side panel 18 of canopy covering 12 to corner support member 22. See id. at 6:60–64 (“As is shown in phantom in FIG. 3, canopy covering 12 has a side panel 18 which is additionally secured to a top portion of corner support member 22 by means of corresponding hook and loop fasteners, such as Velcro fasteners 35.”). The issue here is whether the “center pole” in the context of the modified device (which does not include Velcro fasteners configured as in Lynch) is “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.”20 We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that this requirement would be satisfied in the context of the modified device, even without Velcro fasteners. We first address whether the “center pole” in the modified device is “constructed for . . . sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.” Petitioner states that after modifying roof bearing beam 8 in Yang to include apex portion 50 from Lynch, the “center pole” would “heighten and hold up the fabric tent roof” from Yang. Pet. 40 (citing Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 74–79). According to Petitioner, the proposed modification “would further push up the tent’s rooftop ‘to increase space for activities’ as well as creating more tension in the rooftop to reduce the risk of the rooftop ‘collapsing, bending, or leaking rainwater when raining.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 at 6–7; Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 77–79). We agree that the apex of the roof in Yang as modified by Lynch’s teachings would be higher than the 20 In the Reply, Petitioner seeks to rely on Lynch’s disclosure of using Velcro to attach the roof to the tent frame. See Pet. Reply 17 (bottom paragraph). As argued by Patent Owner, this is a new argument provided for the first time in reply. See PO Sur-reply 12–13; see also Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We see no error in the Board’s rejection of [a petitioner’s] reliance, in its Reply submissions, on previously unidentified portions of a prior-art reference to make a meaningfully distinct contention.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuide Consolidated (“TPG”) (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). We do not consider Velcro fasteners as part of the modified device.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 5,944,040 - Commonwealth Scientific And Industrial Research Organisation v. BASF Plant Science Company GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2021 · PGR2020-00057 · APJ Robert A Pollock · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, lack of enablement, and anticipation or obviousness over Bauer, Napier, and Petrie I; the Petrie II obviousness ground was not proven.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Although the precise definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art is not dispositive of Petitioner’s grounds, we find it useful in framing the field of the invention. While we agree with Petitioner’s emphasis on plant recombinant DNA techniques, Patent Owner’s focus on plant genetics and plant lipids is well taken. As noted in the Patent Owner Response, the challenged claims are “directed to plant seed oils produced by a transgenic 10 Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s assertions regarding the similarities between the subject matter of the ’870 patent and the patents at issue in the Virginia litigation but asserts that its arguments in the Virginia litigation differed from those presented here, that those arguments were not accepted by the judge, and that “CSIRO ended up giving BASF a covenant not to sue on every single patent that had the language ‘at least a number with no upper limit.’” See Ex. 2005, 5–16; Ex. 2003, 14–16; Tr. 75:25– 76:11. plant,” whereas the portions of the Specification most relevant to those claims describe “genetically modified plants capable of producing certain oils, lipids, and fatty acids, and the genetic techniques related thereto.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 54); see also section I.D, above. Considering the above, as well as the ’870 patent and cited art, we view a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art as having a working knowledge of plant recombinant DNA techniques, a Ph.D. in plant molecular biology, lipid biochemistry, or lipid metabolism, and three years of work experience (excluding Ph.D. thesis studies) in lipid biochemistry or lipid metabolism as applied to plants. B.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In light of the above, the many variables affecting DHA production render the functional upper bound of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” a moving target. We thus return to the intrinsic evidence and the plain language of the independent claims. Applying the ordinary and customary meaning in accord with Phillips, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” as covering amounts of DHA from 1% to 99% (since the claims also require a minimum amount of 1% EPA). See Pet. 30; Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. For similar reasons, and because Patent Owner does not expressly argue the meaning of the remaining terms, we further adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a ratio of DHA to [DPA] of at least 2,” as covering a ratio from 2 up to infinity; and “a conversion rate of DPA to DHA of at least 75%,” as covering a conversion rate of 75% to 100%. See Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 57; Dec. 13–14. We further adopt Petitioner’s uncontested explanation that the “ratio of DHA to DPA of 2.9” recited in claims 6 and 15 indicates “an implicit upper limit of 73.6% DHA.” See Pet. 56 n.15.” slip op. at 29
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“We consider, first, the evidence of record under our construction of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” as covering amounts of DHA from 1% to 99% (since the claims also require a minimum amount of 1% EPA). Patent Owner argues that such levels are “impossible” and does not contest Petitioner’s assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description under this construction. PO Resp. 27, 28. Indeed, Dr. Sederoff admitted that the ’870 patent neither describes nor enables one 15 The arguments and evidence adduced in this proceeding do not address whether the conversion of 18:2 and 18:3 to DHA could be accomplished using a subset of the enzyme activities shown in Figure 1 by omitting some of the enzymes that permit formation of alternative intermediates. To the extent this is possible, it would not alter the thrust of our reasoning throughout this Decision. of ordinary skill in the art to make a transgenic Brassica plant (as recited in claims 5 and 13) that produces more than 50% DHA. Ex. 1016, 64:23–66:2, 67:24–68:4. But although reaching the upper limit of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” may be impossible under any of the constructions considered herein, the Federal Circuit “repeatedly and consistently has recognized that courts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.” Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb- Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). For the above reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that claims 1–17 do not comply with the written description requirement as set forth in Ground 1 under our construction of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA),” with respect to any plant including Arabidopsis. Considering claims 5 and 13, in particular, the ’870 patent does not describe a transgenic Brassica plant that produces more than 50% DHA.” slip op. at 35
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“In view of the above, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that even in high copy number lines, unpredictable effects such as gene silencing could prevent the accumulation of high levels of enzymes such as those listed in Table 4 of the ’870 patent. Moreover, even if high enzyme levels were achieved, the extent to which those enzymes would catalyze the desired reactions would have been unknown. Accordingly, from a quantitative standpoint, the evidence adduced points to a high level of unpredictability in the art. Focusing on the last step of the pathway illustrated in Figure 1 of the ’870 patent, Patent Owner also asserts that the ordinarily skilled artisan “knew how to introduce multiple additional copies of the key enzyme responsible for the rapid and efficient conversion of DPA to DHA, the Δ4 desaturase from Emiliana huxleyi, to achieve ratios of DHA to DPA approaching infinity, and conversion rates approaching 100%.” Sur-reply 21 (citing Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 136, 142 (stating that “no technical limitation prevents reaching a ratio nearing infinity,” i.e., 100% conversion of DPA to DHA)). Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 100, 113, 136, 142. Although we accept that the ordinarily skilled artisan could understand how and why to carry out those steps, the evidence discussed above persuades us that achieving the stated conversion efficiency for this step alone would have entailed undue experimentation. Considering that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requires, not just one, but every step of the pathway illustrated in Figure 1 proceed with (or at least near) 100% efficiency, the evidence of record persuades us that it would have required undue experimentation to achieve the claimed invention under any construction of “at least 1%” DHA advanced in this proceeding. In light of the above, and considering all the evidence, we find that a” slip op. at 61
Patent outcomesUS 10,351,870 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,351,870
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.