• Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00277 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–12, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over the Edwards-535, Kong, and Stern combinations, with Edwards-886 added for claim 4.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 29–31 (identifying evidence that clinical use and testing experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 5, 14–15 (explaining that clinicians who use such devices gain extensive experience regarding how they work); see also Ex. 1084, 82:13–83:20 (Dr. Bikson testifying that a physician would perform the claimed method steps). Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, we apply Petitioner’s definition. Regardless, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer the opinions in his declarations under either definition and Patent Owner does not identify any testimony it contends would be different under its POSITA definition. See Ex. 1097 ¶ 49 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Moreover, as explained below, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s challenge to Dr. DelGaudio’s qualifications and give his testimony appropriate weight in our analysis. For these reasons, our findings and conclusions would be the same under either side’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Third, nothing suggests that Dr. DelGaudio is not qualified to offer opinions regarding the knowledge and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, to his relevant clinical experience, Dr. DelGaudio has experience designing different types of medical devices and consulting with device manufacturers to provide feedback and improve devices used in nasal surgery. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 9–11. Thus, even if we had adopted a POSITA definition requiring design and development experience, Dr. DelGaudio would qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art because he has such experience in addition to his extensive clinical background. Id. Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues he is “not an individual capable of designing and developing the medical device used in the claimed method” because “Dr. DelGaudio has no experience in designing medical devices that deliver energy to tissue.” Sur-reply 22–24 (emphasis added). That argument is unavailing because such devices and methods of using them such as those recited in the claims of the ’271 patent are often developed by a team of individuals with different backgrounds and expertise. That Dr. DelGaudio working alone may not be capable of designing and developing such a device does not disqualify him from offering testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly as it relates to those claim elements that recite the use of the device as opposed to its technical details.8 Moreover, Dr. DelGaudio was careful not to overstep the bounds of his expertise, relying on testimony from Dr. Martin to confirm his understanding concerning some of the engineering details of the devices themselves. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 124, 127, 130, 151; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 12 (explaining he relied on Dr. Martin to confirm his understanding of teachings in Stern that disclose “implementation details about circuitry used to operate the bipolar electrodes, the physics of delivering energy to tissue, among other things”); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 66–131 (Dr. Martin testifying regarding a POSITA’s understanding of the prior art as it relates to such elements). Fourth, even if Dr. DelGaudio did not himself qualify as one of ordinary skill, we could still consider his testimony on those matters on which he was qualified. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 52, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents /tpgnov.pdf (“CTPG”) (“A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’”) (citing cases). We agree with Petitioner that this would include matters such as the use of the devices described in the cited references in a clinical setting. See Reply 28. 8 Indeed, by its logic, Patent Owner’s own expert would not be one of ordinary skill in the art because he is not himself capable of practicing the claimed method. See Ex. 1084, 24:13–22, 82:19–83:8 (testifying he has never used an RF device to treat a patient and would not himself perform the recited method).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. Even without taking into account the reasoning based on Baker (which we address separately below), Petitioner has demonstrated a sufficient rationale for incorporating Stern’s arrangement of two rows of bipolar electrode pairs into Edwards-535’s device. Edwards-535 teaches that a plurality of electrodes may be positioned on the surface of its treatment element, but does not specify how those electrodes are arranged or controlled. Ex. 1010, 8:25–27; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 68–69. Stern teaches a control system for selectively delivering power to bipolar electrode pairs arranged in two rows on the surface of its device that provides even heating and precise control. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 80–85. As Dr. DelGaudio explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded these attributes to be particularly beneficial when delivering treatment to the “nasal passages . . . given the uneven morphology of nasal cavity tissue and the proximity of the RF energy delivery to a patient’s brain and other critical tissues within the head.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 94. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Stern’s teachings, including the complementary two-row surface electrode arrangement shown in Figure 19, for these reasons. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–94; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 72–73, 75–88, 96–97 (explaining that Stern’s techniques would have been used to improve Edwards-535’s device in a similar way). Petitioner’s reasoning that “arranging electrodes in rows . . . facilitates simple spatial resolution of the applied energy” is also persuasive. See Pet. 47–48. As Dr. Martin explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that arranging bipolar electrodes in two or more rows was a “common way to arrange such electrodes” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 34) and a “simple way to direct energy to specific locations for treatment would have been to place pairs of electrodes in rows . . . along the device at the locations being treated.” Id. ¶ 95.” slip op. at 41

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. Stern’s Figure 15 shows bipolar electrodes 220 and 224 in a first horizontal row and electrodes 222 and 226 in a second horizontal row. Stern teaches that bipolar pairs can be formed between various combination of these electrodes resulting in both pairs within a row and pairs formed across two rows. See Ex. 1033, 12:61–13:2 (explaining that “bipolar operation is not limited to [electrode] 220-224 and 222-226 pair couplings” because pairs could also be formed across rows, e.g., between electrodes 220 and 222). Stern’s Figure 19 likewise depicts a plurality of electrodes arranged in two rows. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71–74 (Dr. Martin explaining that the physical arrangement in Figure 19 is complementary to the control structure in Figure 15 and that there are two rows regardless of which electrodes are paired). In bipolar operation, each of these figures depicts “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” as recited in element 1[a] because there are two rows comprising multiple pairs.15 Patent Owner’s narrower interpretation of the phrase “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” is not consistent with the intrinsic record. According to Patent Owner and Dr. Bikson, it is not enough that there are two rows of electrodes comprising multiple pairs––rather each row must itself contain multiple pairs. See Resp. 23; Ex. 2001 ¶ 75 (“A row of only two electrodes is not a row of bipolar electrode pairs because a row of only two electrodes has at most a single pair (not multiple pairs).”). As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s interpretation assumes that the “s” in “pairs” modifies each row individually, rather than the recited “rows” collectively. But the claim 15 In reply to Patent Owner’s argument that there must be at least three electrodes in a row for that row to contain multiple pairs, Petitioner shows that Stern also discloses rows with three or more electrodes. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 36– 40; Ex. 1097 ¶¶ 39–41 (identifying rows with three or more electrodes in Stern’s Figures 4a and 19). We need not address that showing in detail because, as explained below, element 1[a] does not require that there be more than one pair in each row. language does not specify that each row has pairs (plural). Rather, given its plain meaning, “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” encompasses an arrangement like that shown in Stern’s Figure 15. Ex. 1097 ¶ 30 (Dr. Martin explaining that “what is required is (1) more than one bipolar electrode pair that are (2) spread across rows”). This broader understanding is confirmed by the specification of the” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 11,241,271 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,241,271
• Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00398 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 over Kalliola and Vauclair; claims 2, 3, and 6 with Kalayjian; claim 5 with Turunen; and claim 9 with Trimble.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner agrees with the qualifications proposed by Petitioner: “this description reasonably represents the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 Patent, as well as the prior art cited in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 13–14 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 22). For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’680 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner proposes that, based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction in the parallel litigation, we construe “pairing signal” as “[p]rocessor signal to initiate a wireless device pairing sequence.” Pet. 6 (quoting Ex. 1009, 15–168). In Response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s interpretation of this term. PO Resp. 14. We adopt the parties’ proposed construction for this term. We determine that we need not construe any other claim terms. 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)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “Second, Petitioner demonstrates that the combination of Kalliola and Vauclair teaches claim limitations 1(d)(iv) and 1(d)(v). As discussed and cited to above, the Petition identifies that, with Kalliola’s touch screen as the claimed “touch screen,” Kalliola’s processor presents a graphical user interface via its touch screen as set forth for limitation 1(c) and 1(d)(ii), and Kalliola’s processor operates in conjunction with its graphical user interface to perform claimed steps as set forth for limitation 1(d)(iii). See Pet. 20–29. We agree that the assertions are supported by Kalliola’s disclosure of a touch screen with a graphical user interface presented thereon, where “tactile elements” “allow the user . . . to enter data . . . into the device.” See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26, 40, 42, 44, 51, 71, Figs. 3, 5. Petitioner also asserts, and we agree, that Kalliola teaches the use of Bluetooth-enabled emitters in remote devices that communicate with its wireless communication device with a signal emitter. Pet. 29–31 (citing Ex. 104 ¶¶ 9, 71, 73–75, 77, 107, Fig. 5). Petitioner contends, and we agree, that Vauclair provides additional specificity regarding the pairing process between two devices with its disclosures of a pairing process between devices using protocols that include Bluetooth, wherein a user can select a pairing option from a menu on a display. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 22, 24, 28, 30, 34–36, 49, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–167). Petitioner argues, and we agree, that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Kalliola to use its processor to present “a pairing menu to enable a user to initiate a Bluetooth pairing process between the WCD and the signal emitter by selecting a pairing option via the WCD’s touchscreen,” with Vauclair teaching at least the selection of a pairing option presented on its display, because the presented pairing menu on Kalliola’s touch screen would allow the user to pair the WCD with the user’s personal item signal emitters and would also allow the devices to recognize each other on subsequent connections. Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 172); see also Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30, 36. Consequently, we also agree with Petitioner’s assertion that it would have been obvious to a person of skill of ordinary skill in the art that Kalliola’s graphical user interface on its touch screen would have generated signals corresponding to the user’s inputs at least to carry out designated functions, like the initiation of a pairing process, and “the signals generated by the GUI from interaction at the touchscreen would be sent to the WCD’s processor so that the processor can interpret the user’s inputs and take the appropriate action.” Pet. 35; see also Pet. Reply 2–7. Petitioner also asserts, and we agree, that generating processor signals in response to a user indication was a known mechanism for wireless devices, as were Bluetooth pairing and corresponding pairing menus, and there would be no change to the respective functions of Kalliola’s’ wireless communication devices and Vauclair’s pairing menu. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 175). The Petition argues, and we agree, that because Bluetooth pairing and pairing menus were conventional prior to time of the invention, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success configuring Kalliola’s wireless communication device. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 176); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–75 (Dr. Buehrer providing evidence on Bluetooth-connected devices and associated pairing). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of rationale to combine Kalliola and Vauclair, a reasonable likelihood of success in the combination, and that the prior art teaches limitation 1(d)(iv). As to limitation 1(d)(v), we also agree with Petitioner that in response to a generation of a pairing signal as discussed in limitation 1(d)(iv), Vauclair discloses that wireless transceivers communicate a series of RF signals back and forth to pair the devices. Pet. 37–38. Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that, in combination, it would have been obvious to configure Kalliola’s Bluetooth transceiver with Vauclair’s teachings for the communication of RF signals to pair devices. Id. at 39. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kalliola teaches that its wireless communication device performs Bluetooth communications with signal emitters, with the user selecting a desired signal emitter for locating objects, and that this pairing would also allow two Bluetooth devices to recognize each other on subsequent connections. Id. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 184). Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that applying Vauclair’s known technique of communicating RF signals to pair devices would improve Kalliola’s wireless communication device and yield the predictable result of Bluetooth-paired devices. Id. We also agree with Petitioner’s argument that this pairing was an understood and conventional feature of Bluetooth mobile communication devices, so there was a reasonable expectation of success in the combination. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 186); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72 (Dr. Buehrer providing evidence on Bluetooth-connected devices). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of rationale to combine Kalliola and Vauclair, reasonable likelihood of success in the combination, and that the prior art teaches limitation 1(d)(v).” slip op. at 40

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 172. The Petition also asserts that, in the combination, there would be no change to the respective functions of either Kalliola’s WCD or Vauclair’s pairing menu. Pet. 36. Thus, the Petition relies on Kalliola’s processor, and its touchscreen, and graphical user interface with Vauclair’s teachings for the pairing menu displayed, wherein pairing signals are generated by Kalliola’s graphical user interface by interaction with the screen. As we discuss further below, Petitioner includes assertions that Vauclair itself teaches that the pairing signal is generated by its graphical user interface. See id. at 33, 37. The Petition, however, also relies on the combination of Kalliola and Vauclair to teach generating a pairing signal by Kalliola’s graphical user interface by interaction with its screen, as discussed above. Id. at 35. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach the issue of whether Vauclair alone teaches that its graphical user interface generates the pairing signal. Additionally, we do not find that Petitioner’s further arguments in its Reply concerning interaction with Kalliola’s wireless communication device through its graphical user interface were impermissibly presented in view of the Petition’s specific assertions on the teachings of the combination of Kalliola and Vauclair, as discussed above, and its reliance on user interaction with Kalliola’s graphical user interface for the teaching of generating the pairing signal. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,265,680 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,265,680
• Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00399 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–19 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 11–14 over Kalliola, Turunen, Oswald, Vauclair, and Kalayjian; claims 15–18 with Thorn; and claim 19 with Thorn and Sharp.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field and 2-4 years of experience with wireless ranging and positioning systems, wireless communication devices, and associated computer programming.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). “Patent Owner agrees that this description reasonably represents the level of ordinary skill required to understand and implement the teachings of the ’246 Patent, as well as the prior art cited in the Petition.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 22). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 8

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

    “device.” This term appears twice in claim 11, once in the phrase “an orientation sensor to detect rotation of the mobile communication device,” and once in the phrase “rotation of the mobile communication device detected by the orientation sensor.” Ex. 1001, 39:13–14, 39:36–38. Patent Owner argues that we should construe this term as limited to “detecting the rotation of the mobile communication device as a whole, not the movement of individual components.” PO Resp. 15–18. Petitioner disputes this, arguing that “rotation of the mobile communication device” should be construed not only to cover rotation of the device as a whole but also should “encompass[] any rotation of the mobile communication device relative to any object, including itself,” which would extend to rotation of “any component of the device.” Reply 4–5. We need not resolve this dispute to determine the outcome of Petitioner’s asserted challenges to the ’246 patent. As discussed more fully below, under either party’s proposed construction of “rotation of the mobile communication device,” Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting 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 9

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “On the record developed during trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Kalliola teaches “an orientation sensor to detect rotation of the mobile communication device,” where “rotation of the mobile communication device” includes rotation of the device as a whole, regardless of whether it also includes rotation of one portion of the device relative to another. Kalliola teaches “motion sensors integrated in WCD 100” that are “used to detect when WCD 100 is being moved,” as well as to detect “when user 110 moves WCD 100 too quickly for an accurate DoA estimation.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 84, 86. Although Patent Owner argues that Kalliola’s motion sensors do not detect rotation of the device, this is incorrect on the record as developed at trial. Kalliola teaches that the motion sensor may take “the form of a semiconductor gyroscope chip.” Id. ¶ 84. There is ample evidence that gyroscopes detect rotation. Ex. 1013, 38 (identifying as an “orientation sensor” a “[t]hree-axis gyro” and a “[d]ynamic [h]igh [r]ange [gyro]”); Ex. 1046, 49:18–20 (Dr. Feuerstein testifying that gyroscopes “can be used to detect angular velocity”); Ex. 1047 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1051, 170; Ex. 1053, 9) (Dr. Buehrer testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that gyroscopes are well-known inertial sensors that specifically detect rotational motion”). Thus, by a preponderance of the evidence, Petitioner has shown that Kalliola teaches the “orientation sensor to detect rotation of the mobile communication device” of this limitation.” slip op. at 17

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

    “whether Kalliola’s teaching of pausing and resuming its DoA estimation based on detected rotational motion, or Kalliola’s teaching of speeding up its DoA estimation based on detected rotational motion, amounts to determining direction based on rotation. Pet. 63–64; PO Resp. 25–27; Reply 24–27; Sur-Reply 11–14. On the record developed during trial, we are persuaded that the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Kalliola teaches determining direction based on rotation. First, Kalliola discloses “pausing a DoA estimation until the motion of the WCD is detected by the motion sensors,” then resuming “the updating of the DoA estimation” when motion is detected. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 14, 84. Second, Kalliola discloses a “correction or compensation mode” that is “employed when user 110 moves WCD 100 too quickly for an accurate DoA estimation,” with this “increase[d] speed of the DoA estimation” being triggered by the “[i]ncreased activity detected by motion sensors in WCD 100.” Id. ¶ 86. As discussed above with respect to limitation 11(d), the detected motion that triggers either of these modes can be rotational motion of the WCD detected by a gyroscope.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,350,246 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,350,246
• Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01280 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial despite declining to deny under § 325(d).

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “Other than initials on a lengthy IDS, nothing in the record indicates that the Examiner substantively considered Takeuchi, Kim, Pienemann, or among over 1,000 other references listed on the IDS, which, as noted in the Director Review Decision, “is over 40 times the size of a typical IDS.” Pet. Remand Br. 5–6; DR Dec. 7 n.3 (citing Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2025, 89 FR 91898 at 91924 (Nov. 20, 2024)); Ex. 1002, 228–284. Petitioner also shows that the applicant did not respond to the Examiner’s request that the applicant specifically point out “any particular reference or portion of a reference in the [IDS] which the examiner should take [sic] pay particular attention to.” Ex. 1002, 174, 295– 302.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Patent Owner is likely correct that the ITC would not have been inclined to grant a stay if one had been requested at the time the Institution Decision issued. Moreover, the ITC conducted a full evidentiary hearing a month after the Institution Decision issued, and the target date for the ITC’s final determination is several months before the projected statutory deadline for the Board’s final written decision. PO Remand Br. 7. Accordingly, we determine that Fintiv factor 1 weighs in favor of discretionary denial. See also Klein Tools, Inc. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., IPR2024-01400, Paper 22 at 2 (PTAB June 9, 2025) (Acting Director Stewart determining that Fintiv factor 1 weighs in favor of discretionary denial when the ITC investigation is unlikely to be stayed, the ITC already conducted a full evidentiary hearing, and the ITC final determination is expected to issue six months before the statutory deadline for the Board’s final written decision).” slip op. at 19

  Discretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,925,202
• Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01406 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board denied institution of review of claims 1, 3, 4, 8–13, and 15 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. A stay of litigation pending resolution of an inter partes review allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts, and strongly weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. The Guidance Memo states that “the Board will apply the Fintiv factors when there is a parallel proceedings at the International Trade Commission.” Guidance Memo 2. Patent Owner asserts that a stay of the ITC Investigation had not been requested at the time of the Institution Decision,7 and argues that “the ITC does not stay investigations pending IPR.” PO Supp. Br. 4. Patent Owner also notes that the Institution Decision issued “just days before the ITC evidentiary hearing.” Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner argues that this factor favors denial. Id. Patent Owner is likely correct that the ITC would not have been inclined to grant a stay if one had been requested at the time the Institution Decision issued. Moreover, the ITC conducted a full evidentiary hearing less than three weeks after the Institution Decision issued, and the target date for the ITC’s final determination is four months before the statutory deadline for the Board’s final written decision. PO Supp. Br. 5. Accordingly, we” slip op. at 9

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,925,202
• Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00144 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–20 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION The Petition fails to show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Accordingly, we deny the Petition. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 23

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “claim 15). We agree that the Specification supports Patent Owner’s construction. Although Petitioner bases its construction on extrinsic evidence, Petitioner argues that its construction “is consistent with” the intrinsic evidence, which, according to Petitioner, “indicates a sole is optional.” Pet. 31. A sole is optional, Petitioner argues, because the Abstract of the ’511 patent states that “[t]he footwear may include an upper and a sole structure.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1001, Abstr. (Petitioner’s emphasis)). We are not persuaded. Petitioner reads too much into the sentence it quotes from the Abstract and its use of the word “may.” Indeed, by Petitioner’s logic, both the upper and the sole structure would be optional and footwear would lack any required structure. Petitioner also argues that “[o]ther intrinsic evidence” supports its construction. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1053, 4:55–58; Ex. 1002 ¶92). The alleged intrinsic evidence, however, is an unrelated patent, US 2,675,631, which purportedly was cited during the prosecution of the ’511 patent. Id. This argument is undeveloped by Petitioner. First, Petitioner fails to substantiate that US 2,675,631 is cited in the prosecution history, merely asserting it as fact without pointing to supporting evidence. See id. (no citation to the prosecution history provided). Further, even assuming US 2,675,631 is cited in the prosecution history of the ’511 patent and thus part of the intrinsic evidence,8 Petitioner fails to show that it is probative of 8 The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he prosecution history, which we have designated as part of the ‘intrinsic evidence,’ consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (emphasis added). what the inventors of the ’511 patent meant by “article of footwear.” Petitioner points out that the inventor of US 2,675,631 considers “knitted footwear” as encompassing “hose, golf hose, three-quarter hose, half-hose and socks” but does not explain why such meaning should be incorporated into the ’511 patent. Ex. 1053, 4:55–58 (partly quoted at Pet. 31–32). US 2,675,631 is titled “Footwear Article of The Slipper-Sock Type.” Ex. 1053, Title. As is evidently clear from the specifications of both patents, the ’511 patent and US 2,675,631 are directed to different types of footwear within the broader (dictionary) definition cited by Petitioner. Ex. 1022, 67, 88. Patent Owner also proffers testimony from Dr. Pastore that a person” slip op. at 11

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

    “We construe the preambles of claims 1 and 15 to be limiting, as guided by case law. It is clear that the preambles are being used to help define the invention, i.e., an upper for an article of footwear in the case of claim 1 and an article of footwear having an upper in the case of claim 15. See Bell Communications Research Inc. v. Vitalink Commcations Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it. In other words, when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some other, is the 9 Claim 15 is similar to claim 1, and, in challenging claim 1, Petitioner merely refers back to and relies exclusively on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 84 (Ground 1), 124–125 (Ground 2). Thus, although we may we discuss claim 1 alone at times, our analysis applies equally to claim 15. one the patent protects.”). Moreover, the bodies of both claims recite “the upper” which, in the case of claim 1, derives its antecedent basis directly from the preamble and, in the case of claim 15, relies on the preamble’s article of footwear which is recited as comprising an upper. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “However, it is not enough that Clark discloses a sole. See KSR Int'l, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). Petitioner must show that it would have been obvious to modify Cusinato to include a sole. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). On this aspect, Petitioner fails. The Petition summarily states that “a POSITA would consider it obvious to add a sole to Cusinato’s ‘boot-like’ form” but – as noted by Patent Owner – the Petition does not explain why. Pet. 51; see Prelim. Resp. 35 (“The Petition is silent with respect to any alleged motivation.”). Dr. Adanur’s testimony does not add much. He summarily opines that “it would be obvious to add a sole to Cusinato’s ‘boot-like’ form to provide cushioning and protection.” Ex. 1002 ¶160.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,918,511
• Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00141 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under §325(d), finding the petition relied on previously presented art and did not show material error by the Office.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “single §102 rejection based solely on Nishida.” Pet. § 325(d) Reply 3 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Petitioner argues that: The examiner seemingly failed to consider how it would have been obvious to combine Nishida (or any other reference of record, such as Orei) with knowledge in the art, including the fact that it was “well known to use double needle-bar raschel machines . . . to knit textile elements simultaneously with surrounding textile structures” (Pet., 37–38), and that simultaneous knitting would be obvious because it would “increase yield and reduce manufacturing steps,” as explained in the Petition and supporting evidence. See Pet., 42–44. Id. (alterations in original); see also id. at 4 (Petitioner arguing that the Examiner clearly erred for “failing to seemingly even consider if it would 10 We quote here, to give context to “otherwise,” both aspects that a petitioner must demonstrate in order to meet its burden. In order to determine whether Petitioner has met its overall burden, we need not and do not reach the issue of whether “the previously presented art [Nishida] teaches the limitations of the challenged claims.” Ecto World, Paper 13 at 6. have been obvious to combine Nishida with other prior art, or to implement Nishida using well-known techniques for simultaneously knitting textile elements and surrounding structures having differing textures.”). We do not find this argument persuasive. The cited portion of the Petition is the contention that Orei—not Nishida—would render obvious claim 1. See Pet. 37–38, 42–44 (Ground 1A). Thus, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Examiner erred in not making an obviousness rejection based on Nishida because the disputed limitation was purportedly well-known. Additionally, Petitioner’s support for the assertion that this limitation is well-known is not persuasive. The Petition parenthetically quotes from a source stating that plural “articles . . . can be simultaneously knitted side-by-side,” not that an article (a textile element) and surrounding textile structure are known to be simultaneously knitted. See Pet. 38 (quoting Ex. 1050, 201) (emphasis added); see also Pet. § 325(d) Reply 3 (Petitioner quoting its own argument and characterizing it as a “fact” (“The examiner seemingly failed to consider . . . the fact that it was ‘well known . . . “)).” slip op. at 21

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00020 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 11–15 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of the instant Decision, “Nike applies New Balance’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based on the record presented, we determine that Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the scope and content of the ’932 patent and the asserted prior art, and, at this stage, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner acknowledges that it agreed to the constructions identified by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent Owner also notes that it agreed to these proposed constructions in the Related Litigation. Id. at 13. However, Patent Owner argues that for purposes of this Preliminary Response, “no terms require construction.” Id. (citing Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “limitation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Becker’s stiffer outer lining would have “restrict[ed] the mobility of the ankle, “not allow[ed] for tightening,” and known to “hav[e] the inner lining extend up above the outer lining.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122–123). Petitioner relies on conclusory reasoning grounded in hindsight to assert that it would have been obvious for “the skin layer [to be] absent from the ankle part of the knitted component,” as required by limitation [11.d]. The difficulty with Petitioner’s position is that neither Becker nor the other cited references disclose, teach, suggest, or otherwise provide motivation for “the skin layer being absent from the ankle part of the knitted component,” as claimed.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,898,932
• Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00151 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–27 unpatentable on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’636 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “25:5 (limitation 1a1: “a portion of the knitted component defining the upper”). “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (alteration in original). Thus, the claim language suggests that the “integral knit tongue” is a component distinct, at least to some degree, from the “upper.” See also Ex. 1001, 2:27–28 (the Specification stating that “[a] knitted component including the upper and an integral knit tongue is incorporated into the article of footwear.”). Limitation 1d reinforces this understanding by requiring the tongue to be joined to a portion of the throat area of the upper. See id. at 6:35–38 (the Specification indicating that the “throat area” is an area of the upper); cf. Ex. 2014, 18–19 (defining “Throat”: “The main opening of a shoe extending from the vamp [(the front part of a shoe upper that covers the toes and part of the foot)] to the ankle.”). In addition to suggesting that the tongue is a component distinct from the upper, the claim language indicates that the integral knit tongue extends through a throat area. See Ex. 1001, 25:10–11 (limitation 1b: “an integral knit tongue . . . extending through a throat area of the knitted component”). With that context, we turn to the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable

    “claim language does not specify it, both parties contend that the “portion of the knitted component” constitutes the majority of the upper. See Pet. 25– 26, 30 (Petitioner applying in this ground that which it characterizes as Patent Owner’s claim construction position); Prelim. Resp. 43 (Patent Owner noting that the Specification states that “a majority of upper 120 is formed from a knitted component 130,” and contending that limitation 1a1 means that “a majority of the upper must be knitted.” (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:57–59)). Nevertheless, we determine for the following reasons that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that central textile element 60 of Dua-956 defines an upper within the meaning of the claims. See Pet. 26. Petitioner contends that, “[w]ith respect to what defines the upper, the ’636 patent discloses that the ‘upper generally extends over the instep and toe areas of the foot, along the medial and lateral sides of the foot, under the foot, and around the heel area of the foot.’” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:44–46, 6:66–67). Petitioner reasons that, “[a]s such, the ’636 patent describes the upper as extending around six parts of the foot: (1) the instep area, (2) the toe area, (3) the medial side, (4) the lateral side, (5) under the foot, and (6) the heel area.” Id. Applying this reasoning to the reference, Petitioner contends that, “[o]f the six upper parts identified in the ’636 patent, only two of them—the medial and lateral sides—are not formed by the central textile element 60,” and therefor “the majority of the parts of the upper are formed by the central element 60.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109). Petitioner provides an annotated versions of Figures 8B and 8C of Dua-956, reproduced below, to depict its contentions. Id. at 30. Above are Figures 8B and 8C of Dua-956—which are, respectively, perspective views depicting a second step and a third step in assembling the article of footwear (Ex. 1029, 3:41–45)—with central textile element 60 shaded green. As Petitioner concedes (Pet. 30) and as the annotated figures above show, central textile element 60 does not form the medial and lateral sides of the footwear. Thus, even if central textile element 60 constitutes the majority of parts of the upper, the sides of the upper remain undefined by the central textile element. Petitioner does not explain adequately how the upper is defined when the side components are missing. We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated adequately for institution that Dua-956 discloses “a portion of the knitted component defining the upper,” as recited in independent claim 1.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner contends that “both upper 70 and 30' are constructed as a single, unitary knit element that defines the upper, and it would have been obvious to construct upper 30 in the same manner.” Pet. 65. Petitioner next turns to Horii, asserting that “Horii discloses “shoes 1 that are characterized by the fact that the entire upper is constructed of a single piece of upper member 2 that is made through weft knitting or circular knitting.’” Id. at 67 (citing Ex. 1017, 9) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner reasons that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to manufacture Dua-956’s upper 30, for example, using the multilayer, single fabric of Horii because Horii’s single-piece knit upper would have provided upper 30 with a seamless structure.” Id. at 68. We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that “[c]onstructing Dua-956’s upper 30 as a single, unitary knit component would not materially change the analysis under Ground 1A.” Pet. 70. In Ground 1A, Petitioner contends that “‘forward portion 61’ of the central textile element 60 is an integral knit tongue that extends through a throat area of the knitted component in the assembled upper 30.” Id. at 34. During the assembly of footwear 10, forward portion 61 is flipped over the top of the footwear and the separate textile elements 40 and 50 (the sides of the footwear) are stitched to the lateral and medial edges (64a and 64b) of forward portion 61—the purported tongue. See Ex. 1029, 9:5–11, Figs. 8B, 8C. Petitioner does not explain adequately how, when modifying the embodiment used in Ground 1A to have a seamless top portion, the purported integral knit tongue is retained in that combination. See Pet. 70 (Petitioner asserting that the proposed combination would still have an exterior surface, an inner surface, lace elements 33, channels 44/54, and loops 35, “along with the other structures identified under Ground 1A,” but not specifically discussing the purported integral knit tongue.). We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that claims 1–6, 8–17, and 19–27 would have been obvious over Dua-596 alone or in combination with Horii.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,510,636
• Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00150 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Skechers did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 were unpatentable, principally because the asserted art did not disclose the construed integral knit tongue.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’562 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’562 patent in February 2012 would have been someone with at least a few years of experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used in making footwear, or a bachelor’s degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent academic or work experience, including in the footwear industry. EX1002, ¶68. Such a person of ordinary skill would have at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles. For individuals with a lower educational level, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s working experience compensates for any such lower educational level, or vice versa. See id. Pet. 22. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “inquiries.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the claims . . . [and t]he second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the properly construed claim to the prior art.” Id. Although an explicit claim construction analysis by a petitioner is not required in every case, a petition nonetheless must identify how the challenged claims are to be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable under the statutory grounds asserted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). And, being part of a prima facia case, such an analysis is part of Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its patentability challenges. Petitioner has failed to satisfy the threshold burden for every ground based on this construction.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We do not find Petitioner’s contentions regarding the two annotated figures to be persuasive. First, those contentions, and the cited opinions of Dr. Adanur, are based on a claim construction that, as discussed above, we reject and for which neither party advocates. Second, Petitioner does not explain adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would discern, even with Petitioner’s added red ovals, a tongue distinct from the upper and tongue extending through the throat area. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s contentions regarding differing textures. See Pet. 32–33. Even if differing textures could rise to the level of distinguishing an integral knit tongue from the upper, the purported tongue texture 48" is not confined to the area identified by Petitioner as the tongue. See Pet. 31 (annotated Figure 11, reproduced above). For example, texture 48" outside of Petitioner’s oval appears to wrap approximately halfway around the ankle opening, which is not argued to be consistent with an ordinary artisan’s understanding of a tongue. Or, put another way, there is no indication that the portion of the 48" texture within Petitioner’s red oval, which purportedly represents the tongue, is distinguishable from the remaining portion of the 48" texture outside of the red oval. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the relatively large area depicted as having texture 48" to be an “integral knit tongue.” In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–4 as anticipated by Dua-592.” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,060,562

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.