- Mastercard Incorporated / Mastercard International Incorporated v. Ov Loop, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01289 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board maintained that claims 1–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Collinge, including claims 10–13 and 27–30.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandDecided for petitioner
“Decision which components of Collinge “the Board relied on for claim 10’s limitation ‘receiving [at the remote computer system] an authorization request to authorize the transaction from the POS terminal.’” Remand Order 3. The Order instructs: “[o]n remand, the Board shall consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to claims 10 and 27, and their dependent claims. Regardless of the Board’s disposition on remand, the Board should address Patent Owner’s arguments and explain more fully its findings as to claims 10 and 27.” Id. The Remand Order further states that “this case is remanded to the Board for consideration of the arguments made in Patent Owner’s DR Request” and that we “should point more specifically to where in Collinge the argued limitation is taught, if anywhere, and which components of Collinge satisfy the limitation, if any.” Id. As instructed, in this Decision we consider Patent Owner’s arguments raised in the DR Request as to claims 10 and 27, and their dependent claims.3 As explained in detail below, and consistent with our determination in the Final Written Decision, we conclude Petitioner establishes by 3 We consider the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s DR Request in the context of arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Response, as arguments on the merits may be considered waived unless presented in that Response. See Paper 16, 9 (explaining that “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived”). a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 10–13 and 27–30 of the ’171 patent would have been obvious over Collinge.4” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1011 ¶ 77. In short, although paragraph 77 of Collinge is cited in the Petition and addresses both issuer processing server 308 and acquirer processing server 312, Petitioner relies on and shows that issuer processing server 308 (not acquirer processing server 312) receives “an authorization request to authorize the transaction from the POS terminal,” as required by claim 10. Pet. 58–59; Pet. Reply 16–18; DR Req. Opp. 2–4. Furthermore, there is no dispute that in Collinge the “authorization process” is performed at issuer processing server 308 in response to a request it receives. Ex. 1011 ¶ 77 (“The issuer processing server 308 may then validate the application cryptogram”). Claim 10 requires “performing an authorization process” including “receiving an authorization request to authorize the transaction from the POS terminal” at the remote computer system. We recognize that acquirer processing server 312 facilitates receiving transaction information from the POS terminal and communicating an authorization request to the issuer processing server 308. See Ex. 1011 ¶ 77. It is merchant point-of-sale terminal 120, however, that transmits “the received payment information and any additional transaction information (e.g., transaction amount, merchant identifier, etc.) to the acquirer processing server 312,” so that “acquirer processing server 312 may then generate and submit an authorization request for the financial transaction” through payment network 124 to issuer processing server 308 for validation. Id. Thus, Petitioner shows that in Collinge the request received by the issuer processing server 308 is “from” the POS terminal, as required by claim 10. See Pet. 58–6-; Ex. 1011, ¶ 77, Fig. 7.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“’095 Provisional, reproduced above). Reply 17–18 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 46, Fig. 7). We credit Dr. Fiske in this regard, who explains that “the functionality performed” in the components in the “Blue-Box Structures,” that is Collinge’s Cloud Systema and Issuer System, “share a ‘connection 178’ therebetween,” as shown in Figure 7 of the ’095 Provisional. Ex. 1050 ¶ 43. We also considered Dr. Easttom’s opinion that Collinge’s Cloud System 110 and Issuer System 108 (see Ex. 1011, Fig. 7) are not one computer system because, in his view, each item “is (one or more) separate systems that operated independently from the others.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 150; see also PO Resp. 36–37 (arguing that Petitioner presents “no evidence” to show that allegedly “distinct” components are part of one remote computer system). We find Dr. Easttom’s opinion untenable because it is contrary to the express disclosure of Collinge, which demonstrates that, rather than operating “independently,” Cloud System 110 and Issuer System 108, and specifically remote-SE system 110 and issuer processing server 308, are connected and operate together through that connection, remotely from the mobile device. The Final Written Decision expressly agrees with and adopts Petitioner’s contentions with regard to claim 10, and we maintain that position here. See FWD 56–59.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,032,171 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,032,171 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. The Foundry, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00669 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over Makower, Fang, and Edwards, with claim 4 also obvious over those references and Stern; the Board did not reach Grounds 1–4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the record before us, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’077 patent and the cited prior art, we find a POSA would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in biomedical engineering or a related discipline, (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices that deliver energy to tissue, and 3) knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, and vice versa. 11 Patent Owner suggests a POSA’s ability to “learn about” the nasal anatomy invokes the wrong standard because a POSA “must have the necessary background at the time of the invention.” PO Sur-reply 27. We agree in part with Patent Owner; the hypothetical POSA is presumed to possess the requisite skill at the time of the invention. Nevertheless, as it concerns an engineer with extensive experience designing and developing RF ablation devices (like Dr. Martin), we see no basis to conclude that such person may not become familiar with the features of the nose through review of the literature and/or consultation with clinicians. Ex. 1098 ¶ 44 (testifying a person with device design experience could learn about the relevant nasal anatomy and apply their skill to problems or solutions for that area by reviewing the relevant literature). Moreover, that Dr. Martin may not have had personal experience designing devices for the nose prior to 2006 does not mean that he cannot testify from a POSA’s perspective. Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA, Inc., 116 F.4th 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“An expert need not have acquired the skill level prior to the time of the invention to be able to testify from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art” because “an expert can acquire the necessary skill level later and develop an understanding of what a [POSA] knew at the time of the invention”) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner that the ’077 patent discloses delivering neurotoxins to any target, and not just the nose, the claims of the ’077 patent are directed to methods of treating a nasal condition by delivering energy to the nasal cavity. Pet. Reply 32. Thus, to fill a gap between Petitioner’s POSA definition and the scope of the challenged claims, we add to Petitioner’s definition the requirement for knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. We additionally add that a POSA’s educational background may include a bachelor of science degree in biomedical engineering or related discipline to reflect the nature of the field of invention. Nonetheless, we also note that our analysis and conclusions herein would not change even under Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a POSA. We do not agree with Patent Owner that prior experience designing or developing nasal medical devices is required for a POSA. PO Resp. 19–20. A definition inclusive of the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of nasal medical devices that deliver energy to tissue is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’077 patent and prior art. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Bu-Saba fails to qualify as a POSA because he lacks experience specific to designing medical devices. PO Resp. 19 n.4. We also disagree that Dr. Martin’s testimony should be discounted for a lack of first-hand experience designing RF ablation devices specific for the nose (which experience Patent Owner’s engineer expert also lacks). Id. As Dr. Martin’s testimony concerns certain issues in dispute (i.e., use of bipolar electrodes), we find Dr. Martin is qualified and his testimony helpful in resolving those disputes. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining And, even if there may be gaps in Dr. Martin’s experience or knowledge about the nasal anatomy, such gaps are filled by Dr. Bu-Saba’s extensive clinical expertise and testimony of record. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that we should discount the testimony of Dr. Bu-Saba or Dr. Martin; we give their testimony appropriate weight in reaching our conclusions here.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that prior experience designing or developing nasal medical devices is required for a POSA. PO Resp. 19–20. A definition inclusive of the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of nasal medical devices that deliver energy to tissue is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’077 patent and prior art. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Bu-Saba fails to qualify as a POSA because he lacks experience specific to designing medical devices. PO Resp. 19 n.4. We also disagree that Dr. Martin’s testimony should be discounted for a lack of first-hand experience designing RF ablation devices specific for the nose (which experience Patent Owner’s engineer expert also lacks). Id. As Dr. Martin’s testimony concerns certain issues in dispute (i.e., use of bipolar electrodes), we find Dr. Martin is qualified and his testimony helpful in resolving those disputes. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining And, even if there may be gaps in Dr. Martin’s experience or knowledge about the nasal anatomy, such gaps are filled by Dr. Bu-Saba’s extensive clinical expertise and testimony of record. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that we should discount the testimony of Dr. Bu-Saba or Dr. Martin; we give their testimony appropriate weight in reaching our conclusions here.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims’ language in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA, in view of the patent’s specification and considering the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only to the extent needed to resolve the dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim construction is for “resolution of disputed meanings”). Petitioner contends that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR, the Board need not construe any terms.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner responds that “the Board need not construe any terms to determine Petitioners have failed to carry their burden in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 20. On the record before us, we conclude that the claims need not be expressly construed to resolve the dispute before us. Insofar as the parties dispute the mapping of the prior art to dependent claims 4 and 7, we address that dispute below including, to the extent necessary, any implicit disagreement about the subject matter encompassed by those claims.” slip op. at 17
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“For all the reasons above, we determine that the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that a POSA would have reasonably expected success in combining the prior art to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 11,679,077 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,679,077 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. The Foundry, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00280 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8–10, 12, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Makower, Fang, and Edwards; the Board did not reach Grounds 1–3.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the record before us, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’011 patent and the cited prior art, we find a POSA would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in biomedical engineering or a related discipline, (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices that deliver energy to tissue, and 3) knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that prior experience designing or developing nasal medical devices is required for a POSA. PO Resp. 19–20. A definition inclusive of the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of nasal medical devices that deliver energy to tissue is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’011 patent and prior art. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Bu-Saba fails to qualify as a POSA because he lacks experience specific to designing medical devices. PO Resp. 19 n.4. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that we should discount the testimony of Dr. Bu-Saba and we give Dr. Bu-Saba’s testimony appropriate weight in reaching our conclusions here.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the record before us, we conclude that the claims need not be expressly construed to resolve the dispute before us. Insofar as the parties dispute the mapping of the prior art to dependent claim 9, we address that dispute below including, to the extent necessary, any implicit disagreement about the subject matter encompassed by claim 9.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that Makower and Fang7 are analogous art to the challenged claims. Pet. 77 (arguing Makower and Fang “are in the same field” and are “reasonably pertinent” to solving problems addressed by the claimed invention); Ex. 1002 ¶ 178. According to Petitioner, Makower and 7 Petitioner argues a POSA had reasons for combining Edwards with Makower and Fang with a reasonable expectation of success (see, e.g., Pet. 74–76, 81–85). We find persuasive Petitioner’s reasoning and evidence on the addition of Edwards, and Patent Owner provides no rebuttal about Edwards. energy to tissue and “each uses RF energy to treat tissue.” Pet. 77 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 43, 132, 164, 187; Ex. 1006, 876–877).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,894,011 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,894,011 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. The Foundry, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00279 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, and 17–25 are unpatentable as obvious over Makower and Fang; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the record before us, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’675 patent and the cited prior art, we find a POSA would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices that deliver energy to tissue, and 3) knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, and vice versa. In reaching our finding, we note that, although we agree with Petitioner that the ’675 patent discloses delivering neurotoxins to any target, and not just the nose, the claims of the ’675 patent are directed to methods of treating a nasal condition by delivering energy to the nasal cavity. Pet. Reply 30. Thus, to fill a gap between Petitioner’s POSA definition and the scope of the challenged claims, we add to Petitioner’s definition the requirement for knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. We additionally add that a POSA’s educational background may include a bachelor of science degree in biomedical engineering or related discipline to reflect the nature of the field of invention. Nonetheless, we also note that our analysis and conclusions herein would not change even under Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a POSA. We do not agree with Patent Owner that prior experience designing or developing nasal medical devices is required for a POSA. PO Resp. 19. A definition inclusive of the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of nasal medical devices that deliver energy to tissue is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’675 patent and prior art. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Bu-Saba fails to qualify as a POSA because he lacks experience specific to designing medical devices. PO Resp. 19 n.4. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Second, we credit the testimony of the experts that, on balance, further confirms that skilled clinicians knew how to manage and remove fluids to the extent necessary. Dr. Bu-Saba testifies that typical steps for RF ablation procedures (even before 2006) included positioning the patient in a seated or slightly reclined position to facilitate the flow of any mucus or fluids away from the nasal cavity, application of topical decongestants, and “[i]n some circumstances,” if mucus or blood was still in the treatment area, “a 11 Nor does Patent Owner identify any disclosure in any other technical literature (either before or after 2006) expressing concerns that electrolytic fluids at the operative site could not be managed and/or would prevent targeted application of RF ablation energy to tissues at that site. See, e.g., Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 91–97 (testifying about the hypothetical “fluid” problem, but identifying no independent recognition of such a problem in any corroborating reference); Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 66–76 (same). visualization of the surgical site.” Ex. 1098 ¶¶ 81–89; Pet. Reply 14–15. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Levine, concurs that skilled clinicians knew how to remove mucus and other fluids, testifying that “[i]f [mucus] was obstructing my view” and “[i]f it was this thick . . . I might have to mechanically remove it with forceps, I might have to suction it, I might have to irrigate the nose with a saline solution to wash out the nose.” Ex. 1089 (Levine Tr.), 83:3–84:6 (admitting residual saline could either be swallowed or suctioned out); see also id. at 86:1–16 (testifying a patient may be positioned such that by “[v]irtue of gravity . . . fluid would fall to the bottom”).” slip op. at 33
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR, the Board need not construe any terms.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner responds that “the Board need not construe any terms to determine Petitioners have failed to carry their burden in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 20. On the record before us, we conclude that the claims need not be expressly construed to resolve the dispute before us. Insofar as the parties dispute the mapping of the prior art to dependent claim 22, we address that dispute below including, to the extent necessary, any implicit disagreement about the subject matter encompassed by claim 22.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 10,610,675 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,610,675 - PTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · PGR2025-00009 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, 6–14, and 16–29, finding the written-description and enablement challenges met the institution threshold; the obviousness challenge did not.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the cited evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6–14, and 16–29 of the ’035 patent, and therefore, we grant post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’035 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–53 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“On the current record, the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the claims of the ’035 patent fail to satisfy the written description requirement because they “recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it and . . . cover any compound later actually invented and determined to fall within the claim’s functional boundaries— leaving it to the pharmaceutical industry to complete an unfinished invention.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353. Accordingly, on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’035 patent does not comply with the written description requirement. Similarly, the current record does not appear to provide evidence of possession of the full scope of the claims of the ’035 patent in the ’731 application or any of the subsequent divisional or continuation applications leading to the ’035 patent that claim priority to the ’731 application (which appear to all have similar specifications) for the reasons given above.10 Therefore, the ’035 patent might not receive the benefit of priority to the earlier filed applications, and based on this preliminary determination, is eligible for post-grant review” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,123,035 - Geneoscopy, Inc. v. Exact Sciences CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00459 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over each of the six asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Here, as in our Institution Decision, we do not discern a significant difference between the parties’ respective proposed definitions beyond the number of years of experience after obtaining a doctoral degree. Compare Pet. 12, with Prelim. Resp. 47, and Resp. 19–20; see also DI 7–8. Under either proposed definition, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been very highly skilled and educated. For purposes of this Final Decision, we maintain that Patent Owner’s definition appears to be reasonable (and it falls between Petitioner’s two definitions asserted in the reexamination request and in the Petition). Further, Patent Owner’s proposed definition appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’781 patent itself, for example, Vilkin’s authors are a group of medical doctors and an editor of the journal is a PhD, Joost Louwagie, the named inventor of the ’781 patent, holds a PhD in Biochemistry, and the authors of Itzkowitz are medical doctors and PhDs. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he 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)); see Ex. 1005, 3 (list of authors); Ex. 1016 (Dr. Louwagie profile); Ex. 1055; see also generally Reply (Petitioner did not contest our similar determination at Institution). Therefore, we adopt and use Patent Owner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, set forth above. C.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that no claim construction is necessary in this proceeding. See generally Pet. Similarly, Patent Owner states that it “does not believe that claim construction is necessary to resolve patentability” in this proceeding. Resp. 21. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with the parties that no construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of our Final Decision. D.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyOther
“Pet. 12. In support of these grounds for unpatentability, Petitioner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Duncan Whitney, PhD. Ex. 1002; Ex. 1080. In support of its positions, Patent Owner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Vadim Backman, PhD, and the Declaration of Peter Wood. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2022; Ex. 2023.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“We have no reasonable doubt that aspects of the Cologuard product practice the invention of the ’781 patent’s claims 1 and 3, which are most generally directed to steps of collecting two portions of a fecal sample at home, and combining a respective buffer stabilizer/preservative with each of the two portions for claim 1, and then processing those fecal samples by testing for blood and nucleic acids (e.g., DNA) for claim 3. These appear to be nearly the most basic steps for using the Cologuard kit. See generally Ex. 2032. And, these steps do illustrate a certain ease of use and consumerfriendliness that may be a contributing factor in Cologuard’s success. See, e.g., Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 140–142, 155, 158–159, 170–171.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,634,781 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,634,781 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00290 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 11–17, 21, 22, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, and 42–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4 and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Institution Decision, we deemed the differences in the parties’ proposals not material due to their substantial overlap, adopted Patent Owner’s proposal for purposes of that Decision, noted that the outcome of the Decision would not change if we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, and instructed the parties to “explain the differences and their relevance to the patentability issues in this case, and state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences” if either party continued to propose differing proposals during trial. Inst. Dec. 10–11. After institution, neither party has explained the materiality of the differences in their proposals or argued that any issues in this case turn on those differences. Based on our review of the parties’ proposals, we find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of skill exemplified by the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’223 patent. Accordingly, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal in our analysis in this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“[T]he prior art itself” may reflect an appropriate level 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))). The outcome of this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“persuasive and reject Patent Owner’s argument that we should construe the limitation as requiring the absence of one parameter from the display prior to the replacement and the absence of the other parameter after the replacement. We do not view either requirement proposed by Patent Owner as justified based on our review of the claims, specification, and prosecution history.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner Petitioner proposes with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 9–30. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes.” slip op. at 58
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“proposed combination based on the argument that a POSITA would have been motivated to switch the layout responsive to a parameter value changing. Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–40, 47–52). For example, we agree with Petitioner that a motivation exists to change the layouts to “best suit the condition of [the] patient” because Naghavi expressly describes an “interactive and dynamic” GUI that “may automatically detect changes in health status . . . and automatically react and rearrange the available options to best suit the condition” of the patient. Ex. 1005 ¶ 63. The supporting expert testimony persuasively relies on this aspect of Naghavi when concluding that “such a change in the severity of a parameter can indicate a change in the patient’s health that may require close monitoring” and a POSITA “would have been motivated to implement this approach of the combination in order to achieve” Naghavi’s objectives. Ex. 1003 ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 63); see also Pet. Reply 23 (“[T]he rearrangement of parameters, as already suggested by Naghavi and implemented according to Hochstedler, advantageously ensures an easy-to-use user interface, e.g., by highlighting information that has changed to warrant user attention.” (citing Pet. 13–14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–43)); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–43.” slip op. at 51
Patent outcomesUS 8,190,223 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,190,223 - Apple Inc. v. Willow Laboratories, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00296 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17, 19–21, 23–26, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over Abdul-Hafiz and Raley, or over Abdul-Hafiz, Raley, and Secker.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“appear to be that Patent Owner specifies that the POSITA’s knowledge and experience may include optical sensors and that the POSITA may have a degree emphasizing software. We do not deem these differences material, particularly because the optical sensors and technologies at issue are those used in physiological monitoring technologies. Moreover, both parties agree that the POSITA would have a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 22; Ex. 2079 ¶ 37. Nonetheless, we find the additional specificity of Patent Owner’s definition to be helpful. Also, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’911 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the POSITA. We note, however, that we would reach the same outcome under either definition of the POSITA. See also PO Resp. 12 (Patent Owner asserting “under any proposed level of skill, the claims’ patentability is confirmed for at least the reasons set forth below.”).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Kenny’s explanation finds support in Raley, and we find his explanation credible. Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 9–11. We agree that Raley’s opening 26 has a vertical depth. In order for emitters 21, 22, 23, 24 to be flush with opening 26 as depicted in Raley’s Figure 3 (see PO Resp. 17–18 (arguing that LEDs are flush with opening 26)), the opening must have a depth to accommodate the thickness of the emitters. We further agree that opening 26 is within a solid body, namely interconnect cable 20. We also agree that, in view of the structure and function of Raley’s probe 40 and interconnect cable segment 20, a POSITA would have understood opening 26 is designed to receive the emitters therein. Given that Raley’s interconnect cable segment 20 includes opening 26 that is designed to receive emitters 21, 22, 23, 24 therein, Petitioner has persuaded us that Raley’s LEDs are recessed into a cavity under both the plain and ordinary meaning of “cavity” and Petitioner’s construction from the Delaware Litigation.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“testimony regarding a POSITA’s understanding of Figure 11B of Abdul-Hafiz. Ex. 2079 ¶¶ 87–88. More pertinent to claim construction, however, is a POSITA’s understanding of the claim term in view of the Specification. See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“As we stated in Vitronics, the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Circ. 1996))). In this regard, Petitioner points to Dr. Madisetti’s Rebuttal Expert Report, which was submitted on behalf of Patent Owner in the Delaware Litigation, where, upon reviewing the Specification of the ’911 patent for written description support for the claims, Dr. Madisetti testifies that “[a] POSITA would have known that the detection surface area of a given detector is essentially the entire surface area of the detector.” Ex. 1082 ¶ 912. During oral argument, Patent Owner attempts to reconcile the apparent inconsistency between this testimony and Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Tr. 34:20–36:12. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that, according to the ’911 patent Specification, the entire surface of the light-detecting side of the detector is the area that light reaches because there is “nothing blocking the entire area of the of the light-detecting side of the detector from receiving light.” Id. at 35:12–13. Patent Owner’s assertion, however, ignores EMI shield grid 2444 and foil 2450 that are placed on and at least partly cover the light-detecting side of the detector. Ex. 1001, 13:38–53, Fig. 24. Accordingly, we find Dr. Madisetti’s testimony regarding a POSITA’s understanding of the Petitioner’s construction, and we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “a detection surface area of the at least one detector” as the surface area of the light-detecting side of the detector.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“reasons against it in the Sur-reply, we are persuaded that a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture to have an area smaller than the detection surface area to prevent optical noise sources such as ambient light and piped light reaching the detector. We disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not explain why a POSITA would have made Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture smaller than the detection surface area. Preventing optical noise sources explains why a POSITA would have made Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture smaller than the detection surface area because making the area of the aperture smaller than the detection surface area helps prevent optical noise sources from reaching the detector. Even if Abdul-Hafiz’s low noise housing 400 and fixed shield 1005 mitigate optical motivation to make something better. See Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[W]e have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists . . . when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.”). Adding an additional protection against optical noise by limiting the diameter of Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture would have enhanced the optical noise mitigation of the low noise housing and fixed shield. Moreover, apart from Abdul-Hafiz, Petitioner does not identify in the prior art an opening having a smaller area than a detection surface area. Petitioner, however, identifies a known relationship between the size of the opening relative to the detection surface area and preventing optical noise from ambient light and piped light. Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 33); Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1011, 96–97, Fig. 6.6; Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 30–32; Ex. 1080 ¶ 73; Ex. 1081, 12:51–63, 14:19–47, 14:28–47). When one parameter is known to influence a specific result, such as the size of the opening relative to the detection surface area preventing optical noise, discovering the optimum value of the parameter is generally obvious. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (Fed. Cir. 1980) (“Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” (citing In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955))). Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the proposed modification to Abdul-Hafiz, namely reducing the area of the aperture to be smaller than the detection surface area, is simple and that a” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 10,984,911 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,984,911 - PTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00294 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable; proposed substitute claims 21–24 are also unpatentable, so the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“appear to be that Patent Owner specifies that the POSA’s knowledge and experience may include optical sensors and that the POSA may have a degree emphasizing software. We do not deem these differences material, particularly because the optical sensors and technologies at issue are those used in physiological monitoring technologies and both parties agree that the POSA would have a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; PO Resp. 11. We find the additional specificity of Patent Owner’s definition to be helpful. In addition, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’507 patent. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he 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 note that we would reach the same outcome under either definition of the POSA. Cf., PO Resp. 12 (asserting that Petitioner’s proposed definition is “flawed” but also asserting that “patentability is confirmed” “[r]egardless of the level of skill”).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1007, 1528. The dispute between the parties focuses on whether D’Angelo was made available to attendees of the IEEE EMBS conference identified in this header and, if so, what effect that has.16 Accordingly, we begin our analysis by considering the conference.” slip op. at 42
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“understood Mendelson to disclose averaging signals. We do not find in Mendelson any discussion of summing or averaging signals. See generally Ex. 1011, 912–915. Our inability to find a teaching of averaging in Mendelson is consistent with the testimony of Drs. Kenny and Duckworth. Dr. Kenny testifies that “there is simply no disclosure in Mendelson itself of any summing or averaging of collected signals.” Ex. 1083 ¶ 23. And in his deposition, Dr. Duckworth was unable to identify any express disclosure of averaging in Mendelson. See Ex. 1087, 103:9–114:11 (confirming that certain aspects of his declaration testimony relating to averaging of signals are not discussed in Mendelson). Accordingly, Mendelson, standing alone, does not support that the POSA would have understood Mendelson’s Sensor Module to have output averaged signals” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“the PDA to read out ‘data that’s been stored’ (i.e., previously measured physiological data) even after the Receiver Module’s battery had died” because Mendelson’s Receiver Module lacks “a microSD card or other nonvolatile storage from which measured data could be ‘read out’ after its battery has died.” PO Resp. 37; see also Ex. 2037 ¶ 147 (testimony of Dr. Duckworth confirming that Mendelson’s system could not store data that could be read out after its battery died). Accordingly, Patent Owner argues the POSA “would not have been motivated to modify Mendelson’s Receiver Module to draw power from the PDA as proposed because doing so would not allow the PDA to ‘read out’ the previously ‘measured physiological data’ after the Receiver Module’s battery died.” PO Resp. 39.” slip op. at 60
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,736,507 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00290 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 11–17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, and 42–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Institution Decision, we deemed the differences in the parties’ proposals not material due to their substantial overlap, adopted Patent Owner’s proposal for purposes of that Decision, noted that the outcome of the Decision would not change if we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, and instructed the parties to “explain the differences and their relevance to the patentability issues in this case, and state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences” if either party continued to propose differing proposals during trial. Inst. Dec. 10–11. After institution, neither party has explained the materiality of the differences in their proposals or argued that any issues in this case turn on those differences. Based on our review of the parties’ proposals, we find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of skill exemplified by the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’223 patent. Accordingly, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal in our analysis in this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“[T]he prior art itself” may reflect an appropriate level 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))). The outcome of this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes discloses all of the limitations in claim 1. b. Motivation to Combine After summarizing its proposed combination, Petitioner provides a number of reasons for combining the references. Pet. 9–17. Petitioner breaks its motivation to combine arguments into three separate categories that we address below. See id. at 13–17. Patent Owner raises a number of arguments in support of its contention that “a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the references to replace a measured value of one parameter with the measured value of another parameter,” which we address in the context of Petitioner’s arguments below. See PO Resp. 44–57. Many of Patent Owner’s arguments rely on Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions for “replaced” and “measured value,” which we do not adopt for the reasons discussed above. For example, the first sentence in Patent Owner’s argument contends that “Naghavi, Hochstedler and Burnes do not disclose using the same screen area to display two currently measured parameters,” but we do not read the claims as requiring the display of “two currently measured parameters” consistent with Patent Owner’s construction for “measured values.” See id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2042 ¶ 125). Such arguments lack weight given that we have rejected their premise, and although Patent Owner’s arguments are suffused with references to its claim constructions, we attempt to identify where Patent Owner does not rely on those constructions in our analysis below.” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 8,190,223 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,190,223
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.