- PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00987 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5–16, and 20–22 are anticipated by Kim, Kobayakawa, and Hayashi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the Petition as well as all supporting evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge of at least one claim of the ’742 patent as unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’742 patent on all grounds stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The Specification provides that when the electrode portion cross section and the housing cross section are located on the same surface of the carrier, the electrode portion cross-section and the housing portion cross section may be level with each other (i.e., form a flat surface) or may not be level with each other (i.e., do not form a flat surface). Ex. 1001, 6:35–40. The Specification appears consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “level” which is “an approximately horizontal line or surface taken as an index of altitude” or “to make (a line or surface) horizontal: make flat or level.” Level Definition & Meaning - Merriam- Webster. Ex. 3001. Consequently, based on the current record, we do not agree with the district court in the Walmart-Everlight Litigation that this limitation is indefinite. Further, we preliminarily determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “not level” limitation to mean that the housing cross section and the electrode portion cross section do not form a flat surface with each other.7 Thus, based on the current record, we are able to ascertain the scope of claims 1 and 11 with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability. Cf. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the [inter partes review] or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on the merits with respect to whether petitioner had established the unpatentability of those claims under sections 102 or 103.”).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Each element of the challenged claim must be found, either expressly or inherently, in the single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). When evaluating a prior art reference in the context of anticipation, the reference must be “considered together with the knowledge 5 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0117403 A1 (filed October 28, 2013; published May 1, 2014) (Ex. 1006, “Hayashi”). of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). “[A] reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,905,742 - PTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00839 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR for claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’863 patent. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is instituted for claims 1–20 of the ’863 patent on the unpatentability grounds asserted in the Petition; and” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have had a minimum of an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–94). Patent Owner proposes that a POSITA “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics, or a similar field and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least,” which we determine to create a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Unlike Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner’s proposal has evidentiary support. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–94). Further, Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the ’863 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction to resolve the challenges here.” Pet. 11. “Patent Owner agrees that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); 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 the dispute).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Likewise, Fuhse925 does not explicitly disclose a random selection of micro mirrors within the base of a cone. See generally Ex. 1008. At most, Fuhse925 teaches that the normal vector of the reflective facets can have a parallel component N∥, which can vary randomly. Ex. 1008, 3:3–6 (“The second inclination component of the planar facets advantageously varies irregularly in the spreading range, especially according to a random distribution.”), 9:1–31, 11:14–27. Petitioner contends that a POSITA would look to Fuhse925 for explicit detail as to how to implement Fuhse847’s desired normal vector to direct the light to a focal point for the assigned light spot. Pet. 54–56. This, however, does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would have combined Fuhse847’s teaching of assigning a group of micro mirrors within a sphere of influence to every light spot in an image, with Fuhse925’s teaching of a normal vector of the reflective micro mirrors having a randomly varying parallel component N∥, to arrive at a random selection of a set of micro mirrors from a plurality of the micro mirrors located in a base of a cone. On the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded that the combination of Fuhse847, Rich, and Fuhse925 teaches the additional limitation of claim 3. Our determination whether claim 3 would have been obvious over these references is best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,448,863 - PTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00838 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–12 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable over Fuhse262.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’191 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least,” which creates a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Unlike Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner’s proposal has evidentiary support. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–87 (testimony of Dr. Hesselink)). Further, Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the ’191 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals are very similar and that our analysis, at this stage of the proceeding, would be the same regardless of which proposal we adopt.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction.” Pet. 15. “Patent Owner agrees that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 6. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. 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)); 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 the dispute).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“term voxel. See generally Ex. 1006; Ex. 1003 ¶ 176. However, on the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded by the Petition’s analysis and evidence (in particular, Dr. Hesselink’s testimony), that Fushe262 teaches a voxel created by intersecting two or more beams of the reflected ambient light. Dr. Hesselink’s testimony sufficiently explains that light beams reflecting from the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors would create a voxel when the light beams intersect, as shown by Annotated Figure 10. On this record, Patent Owner’s arguments as to the teachings of Fuhse262 are not sufficiently supported by evidence and amount to mere attorney argument. Mere attorney argument has little evidentiary value and does not outweigh the testimonial evidence of Dr. Hesselink, which presently stands unrebutted. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence or explanation in support of a conclusion.”); Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Lab., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Unsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.”); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA 1979) (citing In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972)) (“Arguments of counsel unsupported by competent factual evidence of record are entitled to little weight.”).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,901,191 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH v. Lumenco, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00837 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 were obvious over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 of the ’691 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s reading of limitation [1d]. This limitation requires that each set of micro mirrors has a differing cone angle offset. A claim requiring “each” of an item to have a particular structure requires all instances of the item to have that structure. See In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (claim reciting that “each wire leg” have an offset is not satisfied by prior-art device in which not all of its wire legs have an offset); cf. Micron Tech., Inc. v. U.S., 243 F.3d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The use of the words ‘each’ and ‘any’ to modify ‘employee . . . leaves no doubt as to the Congressional intention to include all employees within the scope of the [Fair Labor Standards] Act unless specifically excluded.”) (quoting U.S. v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 362–63 (1945)); ResQNet.com v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (excerpt in specification using words “each field” and “fields” refers to all, not just some, fields). Thus, for each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each image to have a “differing cone angle offset,” the cone angle offsets of all the sets of micro mirrors must differ from each other. Consequently, as Patent Owner states (Prelim. Resp. 12), a set of micromirrors producing a pixel for a first image must have a cone angle offset that is different from the other sets of micromirrors producing pixels for that image, and also different from the sets of micromirrors producing pixels for any other image. Petitioner has not made us aware of anything in the Specification that suggests otherwise. We are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d] under this interpretation. Petitioner has not identified, and we are unable to find, any teaching in Fuhse262 that each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images has a differing cone angle offset from those of the other sets of micro mirrors. Petitioner asserts instead that “a POSITA would understand that there is a differing cone angle offset for each image because the surface normal of each image, which dictate the cone of reflected rays and cone axis, are required to be different.” Pet. 41. But this assertion suggests, at most, that the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a first image have different cone angle offsets than the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a second image; Petitioner does not appear to be asserting that, e.g., all the sets of micro mirrors creating pixels for the first image are also different from each other, as limitation [1d] requires. Because we are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d], we are not persuaded that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious over Fuhse262 and Fuhse925.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the art “would have had a minimum of an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Patent Owner responds that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics, or a similar field and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ positions, and do not believe that our decision would differ under either definition. Nonetheless, at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We also presume that the cited prior art references reflect the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that no terms require construction. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 10. We also do not see the need to expressly construe any claim term, as the threshold question of institution can be decided without doing so. 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 the dispute).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,317,691 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currency Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00836 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 6–14, 28, and 32–39 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage of the proceeding, having reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Fuhse262 teaches limitation 1b.5. Dr. Hesselink testifies that while Fuhse262 depicts rays that form a light spot, the rays depicted are “chief rays” that depict only the center rays of light for each optical element. Ex. 1003 169–170. Ambient light, however, reflects from the entire surface of the mirrors and forms reflected beams of light, not just the center rays aimed at the center point. Ex. 1003 ¶ 170. The volume of the voxel is set by the intersection of these beams and the center of the voxel is the point at which the center rays of each beam intersect. Ex. 1003 ¶ 171. We determine Dr. Hesselink’s testimony, which is unrebutted at this stage of the proceeding, explaining that light beams reflected from the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors would create a voxel when they intersect with each other, provides sufficient support for Petitioner’s contentions. Patent Owner argues that light beams that intersect in an irregular manner would not necessarily form a voxel, but does not explicitly show that Fuhse262’s light beams do, in fact, intersect in an irregular manner. Moreover, Patent Owner’s argument is unsupported by expert testimony or other evidence at this stage of the proceeding and does not outweigh Dr. Hesselink’s testimony under the reasonable-likelihood standard.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“skill in the art in the field “would have had a minimum of an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 68–74).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“contentions and Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Fuhse262 teaches limitation 1b.5. Dr. Hesselink testifies that while Fuhse262 depicts rays that form a light spot, the rays depicted are “chief rays” that depict only the center rays of light for each optical element. Ex. 1003 169–170. Ambient light, however, reflects from the entire surface of the mirrors and forms reflected beams of light, not just the center rays aimed at the center point. Ex. 1003 ¶ 170. The volume of the voxel is set by the intersection of these beams and the center of the voxel is the point at which the center rays of each beam intersect. Ex. 1003 ¶ 171. We determine Dr. Hesselink’s testimony, which is unrebutted at this stage of the proceeding, explaining that light beams reflected from the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors would create a voxel when they intersect with each other, provides sufficient support for Petitioner’s contentions. Patent Owner argues that light beams that intersect in an irregular manner would not necessarily form a voxel, but does not explicitly show that Fuhse262’s light beams do, in fact, intersect in an irregular manner. Moreover, Patent Owner’s argument is unsupported by expert testimony or other evidence at this stage of the proceeding and does not outweigh Dr. Hesselink’s testimony under the reasonable-likelihood standard.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“contentions and Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Fuhse262 teaches limitation 1b.5. Dr. Hesselink testifies that while Fuhse262 depicts rays that form a light spot, the rays depicted are “chief rays” that depict only the center rays of light for each optical element. Ex. 1003 169–170. Ambient light, however, reflects from the entire surface of the mirrors and forms reflected beams of light, not just the center rays aimed at the center point. Ex. 1003 ¶ 170. The volume of the voxel is set by the intersection of these beams and the center of the voxel is the point at which the center rays of each beam intersect. Ex. 1003 ¶ 171. We determine Dr. Hesselink’s testimony, which is unrebutted at this stage of the proceeding, explaining that light beams reflected from the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors would create a voxel when they intersect with each other, provides sufficient support for Petitioner’s contentions. Patent Owner argues that light beams that intersect in an irregular manner would not necessarily form a voxel, but does not explicitly show that Fuhse262’s light beams do, in fact, intersect in an irregular manner. Moreover, Patent Owner’s argument is unsupported by expert testimony or other evidence at this stage of the proceeding and does not outweigh Dr. Hesselink’s testimony under the reasonable-likelihood standard.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,189,294 - Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00874 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show Bansal's claimed light intensity arrangement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An obviousness determination requires finding both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Obviousness grounds must be supported with “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” and not by “mere conclusory statements.” See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S at 418. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown for institution that Bansal teaches or suggests arranging light sources “such that a higher intensity of light is emitted proximate the second edges compared to the intensity of light emitted not proximate the second edges,” as required by the challenged claims. Instead, Petitioner demonstrates how Bansal describes varying the density of light source distribution throughout the array to provide a higher density of light in the entire peripheral area of the array, which includes the areas proximal to both the first and second edges, as compared to the central area of the array. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1005 ¶ 25. In this regard, Petitioner relies on Bansal’s Figure 9b, asserting that it “shows one embodiment where more light sources are placed near the edges of the panel compared to the light sources in the center.” Pet. 36–37. The comparison of Bansal’s light density between the entire periphery and the central area of the array is insufficient. What is missing from Petitioner’s argument and discussion of Bansal is how Bansal teaches or suggests a configuration that provides a higher density of light proximate to the second shorter edges of the periphery in comparison to the remaining areas of the array, which includes the first longer edges of the periphery. Without that discussion, we find that Petitioner has not shown sufficient for institution that Bansal is persuasively relied upon for the light source arrangement limitation of the challenged claims. likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claims 1, 5, 16, 20, or 21, or dependent claims 2, 4, 6–8, and 17–19 over Larsen, Bansal, and Jones.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelOther
“would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, physics, biomedical engineering, computer engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one year of work or research experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, photodynamic diagnosis (PD), photodynamic therapy (PDT), phototherapy (PT), or a related field. Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that, alternatively, a “POSITA in the relevant time frame would have had at least four years of industry or academic experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, PD, PDT, PT, or a related field.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’028 patent was filed, “would have had a M.D. and/or a Ph.D. in an electrical engineering, physics, optical sciences, optical engineering, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one to two years of work or research experience in optical engineering, optics, optoelectronics, phototherapy (‘PT’), PDT, or a related field.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner asserts that, “[a]lternatively, a POSITA could have a Bachelor’s degree in one of the above areas and at least three to four years of work or research experience in that area.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–31). We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. To the extent that the proposed definitions differ, we do not need to resolve those differences as our findings and conclusion in this Decision would be the same under any of the proposed definitions.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,028 - PTAB · Nov 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00834 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“anticipated by Sonti. Pet. 3. To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims to find anticipation. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In evaluating anticipation, it is permissible to take into account not only the literal teachings of the prior art reference, but also the inferences the skilled artisan would draw from it. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. At Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the “dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference”). As such, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“b. Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to topically administer 1% tapinarof composition once a day to treat mild to severe plaque psoriasis in view of Sonti’s teaching to apply its compositions (including 1% tapinarof compositions) in various application frequencies (including once daily) to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Pet. 29–30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184, 187–188; Ex. 1005 Abstract, ¶¶ 55, 196, 288, 387).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsInstituted
“d. Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Patent Owner asserts that, although the “Petition notes the patent’s ‘surprising[] and unexpected[]’ finding that once daily application of 1% tapinarof cream was just effective as twice daily application, . . . the Petition does not analyze, as the law requires, this surprising, unexpected finding in its obviousness arguments.” Prelim. Resp. 52. We are not persuaded by this argument. Immediately after the Petition’s acknowledgement that “[t]he specification [of the ’088 patent] contends that it was ‘surprisingly’ found that once daily application was just as effective as twice daily,” the Petition notes that, “[h]owever, during prosecution the examiner cited a set of prior art by Chen et al. disclosing treating plaque psoriasis by topically applying a composition containing 1% tapinarof once a day.” Pet. 1 (footnote omitted). Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner counters “Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” by referring to the Chen references cited during prosecution, but asserts that “Chen . . . does not undermine Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” because “Chen discloses applying a composition containing 1% mixture of cis and trans 3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropylstilbene, and not one containing 1% tapinarof (3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropyl-trans-stilbene).” Prelim. Resp. 52–53.16 As 16 Patent Owner refers to its earlier discussion on this issue. Prelim. Resp. 53 (“As already discussed . . .”). That earlier discussion is with respect to the Chen references cited in Sonti (i.e., Exs. 1012 & 1013), not the Chen 40” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,590,088 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01035 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–6, 8–10, and 22–28, and denied substitute claims 29–44 because Wright ’451 rendered them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 16). Patent Owner took no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. Inst. 6–7. In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that it accepts the Board’s definition for purposes of this proceeding. MTA 24. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears to be consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although neither party expressly proposes a construction for the term “conversion,” the parties appear to differ in their interpretations of that term. Petitioner interprets “conversion” to mean the percent conversion of the 1- alcohol. See Pet. Opp. RMTA 6–7 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of remaining 1-alcohol); Ex. 1040, 109:2–11. Patent Owner, on the other hand, interprets “conversion” to mean the total percentage of alkenes that have been produced. Ex. 2010 ¶ 123 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of total alkenes). During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner conceded that “conversion can mean either.” Tr. 27:18–28:13. Without the benefit of briefing by the parties, we decline to expressly construe the term “conversion,” as our Decision would be the same under either interpretation, as discussed further below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Moreover, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said claimed invention pertains. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Objective evidence of nonobviousness may include” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded. “[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must, therefore, first consider what results were expected to determine what a POSA would have considered to be unexpected. Id. As seen by the table below, Wright ’451’s disclosure fully encompasses the temperature ranges and purported unexpected results recited by substitute claim 29 and shown in Table 2 of the ’048 Patent: Reference Reaction Calcination Conversion Regioselectivity Rate13 Temperature Temperature Wright ’451 about 220 °C about 200 °C greater than about 90% to to about to 600 °C about 95% about 99% 440 °C Substitute 240 °C to about 420 °C at least 95% to about Claim 29” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,995,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,995,048 - Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 3, 2024 · IPR2024-00424 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of the challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the lower-ranked petition did not justify a second set of petitions.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“large number of claims alone is not sufficient to justify the filing of the second set of petitions when the first set already covers all 152 claims of the ʼ260 patent. We therefore turn to Petitioner’s reasons for why it filed the second set of petitions. In this regard, Petitioner identifies three primary “[m]aterial differences between the petition pairs.” Paper 3, 2–5. The first is that the second set of petitions relies on a different set of references, based on Madhavan, rather than Baig. Id. at 2. The second material difference relates to possible priority date issues, and the third relates to possible claim construction issues. Id. We determine that none of these “material differences” are sufficient to justify filing the second set of petitions, including this petition. See November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) 59, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“[O]ne petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. . . . In addition, multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases. . . . The Board finds it unlikely that circumstances will arise where three or more petitions by a petitioner with respect to a particular patent will be appropriate.”).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“IPR2024-00421 and IPR2024-00422, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review in this proceeding. IV. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied and inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’260 patent is not instituted.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,861,260
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.