- Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01169 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 4–20 are unpatentable over Thomas; claim 3 is not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 22–36 are unpatentable, and substitute claim 21 is not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“with the computer program 110.” Ex. 1005, 3:54–55. Thomas describes that (1) the “collected data is then stored in the database 130,” (2) the collected “data is stored in a data structure, generally referred to as a user’s profile,” and (3) the collected “data is logically linked to an event, or situation, that initiated the user’s input.” Id. at 3:56–61. Thomas describes creating or establishing a user profile by simulator 120 recording “the user’s decision/input” and storing “the user’s input in the field or sub-profile associated with the particular situation and/or event.” Id. at 4:67–5:5, Fig. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing for element [1.3]. Also, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we must consider what Thomas discloses rather than whether Thomas uses the exact claim term “instruction sets.” Cf. Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1334 (a reference does not have to satisfy an ipsis verbis test to disclose a claimed element). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Thomas does not “mention instruction sets” or “anything related to an instruction set.” PO Resp. 36–37; PO Sur-reply 17.” slip op. at 42
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“C. Indefiniteness Petitioner argues that proposed substitute claims 22–36 are indefinite.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS 10,607,134 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,607,134 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01172 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9, 11–14, 16–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grotmol; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable because Grotmol does not disclose its required sequence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties appear to agree that the term “connection” refers to a relationship, but dispute whether it includes a link. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 23. We need not resolve this claim construction issue in order to resolve the parties’ disputes about the asserted ground of unpatentability. Specifically, as discussed below, even if we assume for the purposes of this Decision that the term “connection” means a “relationship that includes a link,” the asserted prior art still discloses the disputed claim limitation. See Section II.D.23.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that claim 15 requires modifying the first instruction set before determining the modified first instruction set based on an at least partial match between the new digital picture and the first digital picture. Claim 15 recites “modifying: the first one or more instruction sets” and “determining the modified the first one or more instruction sets . . . based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures.” Ex. 1001, 162:65–163:15 (emphasis added). The phrase “the modified . . . instruction sets” in the determining limitation indicates an order because it refers back to the instruction sets modified in the modifying limitation. Id. Further, the phrase “based on the at least partial match” indicates that a partial match between the new picture and the first picture returns the modified first instruction set. Id. In order for a partial match to return the modified first instruction set, it is logical that the first instruction set previously was modified and correlated to the first picture. Id. Thus, claim 15 indicates that the modifying limitation is performed before the determining limitation. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, [the recited steps] must be performed in the order written.”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“3. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more digital pictures,” the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device,” and the “means for learning the first one or more digital pictures correlated with the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device” in claim 34 is “one or more processor circuits.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:8–60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this Decision. D. Anticipation of Claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 by Grotmol Petitioner argues that claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,055,583 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00950 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable; claims 15–22 were shown unpatentable over Markel. The revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In carefully and faithfully wrangling the parties’ views and explanation as to the meaning of limitation [1.c.iii], we conclude that Petitioner’s “correct interpretation” of that limitation is that a first pad is recognized as a distinct structure or component from a first portion of an enclosure, and that the pad is positioned underneath that first portion in a manner such that the pad is concealed from a user. We adopt that interpretation. We determine that it is unnecessary to discuss an express construction for any other term to resolve this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it 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). Nevertheless, our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not appear to disagree that Markel, itself, does not convey that an electrode, or any structure identifiable as a “pad,” is positioned underneath any surface of any enclosure. Rather, Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability is premised on modification of Markel to so position such a pad. Although seemingly acknowledging that Markel contemplates a concealment technique involving molding an electrode into an exterior surface, Petitioner extrapolates from that disclosure that a skilled artisan would be motivated to try an alternative means of concealing an electrode pad by placing the pad underneath an outer layer or portion, i.e., “audio output portion 610.” See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 135). Neither Petitioner, nor Dr. Kenny, however, meaningfully explains why a skilled artisan would have deviated from Markel’s express teachings of concealing an electrode via molding techniques to then arrive at an entirely different concealment approach of placing an electrode pad underneath the audio output portion. Petitioner’s modification proposal in that regard appears borne of hindsight bias based on the disclosure of the ’257 patent rather than any dutiful consideration of what Markel’s actual teachings would have conveyed to a skilled artisan. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 84 (Dr. Kenny explaining why Petitioner’s proposed modification to Markel to hide the electrode underneath a plastic conductive layer was based on improper hindsight). Such hindsight bias is impermissible. See, e.g., Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01054 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4 and 11 are unpatentable over Grotmol and Hickman; claims 5 and 7 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 21 and 24–26 are unpatentable; claims 22 and 23 are not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art, 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness in this proceeding. would have [had] at least: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–42). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Considering the subject matter of the ’974 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’974 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “connection” Claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, that “a first connection is generated” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMixed
“c) Conclusion—Claim 7 After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we” slip op. at 52
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“7 We recognize that our conclusion here differs from the preliminary determination made in our Preliminary Guidance. After considering the full trial record, including Patent Owner’s MTA Reply, Petitioner’s MTA Sur-reply, Patent Owner’s Sur-sur-reply, and the arguments made at the oral hearing, we find that Petitioner has satisfied its burden of showing that this claim limitation would have been obvious over the Grotmol-Hickman combination. When issuing our Preliminary Guidance, we emphasized that the views expressed therein were “preliminary,” “subject to change upon consideration of the complete record,” and “not binding on the Board when reaching a final written decision.” See Prelim. Guid. 3.” slip op. at 99
Patent outcomesUS 10,452,974 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,452,974 - Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Quantum Imaging LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00954 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–9 are unpatentable over Angles under §103; claims 5 and 6 were not shown unpatentable over Angles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“prosecution history and the amendment changing “held at” to “accessible at,” testimony upon which Patent Owner relies to support its position. Specifically, Dr. Medvidović testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the two phrases to be synonymous because, 1) the amendment was not made to overcome a prior art reference, 2) the applicant did not make a statement disclaiming that “being accessible at” does not encompass “being held at,” and 3) the examiner did not object to the amendment as exceeding the scope of the Specification. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 34. We find that Dr. Medvidović’s conclusion is not supported by his reasoning. First, an amendment made not to overcome a prior art reference does not mean an amendment that does not change the scope of a claim. An applicant is free to amend a claim at any time during prosecution, even an amendment that may expand the scope of a claim (one made not to overcome a prior art rejection). Second, whether “being accessible at” encompasses “being held at” is not the issue—because the scope of one term encompasses the scope of another term does not make the two terms” slip op. at 26
- ExcludeDenied
“III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1017–1020, 1026, and 1027,” slip op. at 83
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of the” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,458,028 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,458,028 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Instagram, Inc. et al. v. VL Collective IP LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00924 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhao; claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“Decision is a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to the patentability of claims 1–16 of the ’980 patent. We determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15 are unpatentable, and Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyOther
“being present in another image or comparing that probability to a detection threshold.”). Dr. Saber was consistent with this testimony on cross-examination. Ex. 1051, 167–251. When I weigh the evidence, I find it to be one-sided, with all of the expert testimony weighing against Petitioner or avoiding the issue altogether. Thus, I would not find that Petitioner has met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Zhao teaches claim limitation 1e. Moreover, even if the Majority is correct about how Zhao’s RCR algorithm works, all that shows is that the detection of object presence in a previous image can be used to disambiguate segments (e.g., limbs) of an already detected object (e.g., a person), not that it can be used to detect the object in the image in the first place, as required by the claim language. For this additional reason, I would not find that Petitioner has met its burden.” slip op. at 84
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Reasons for Obviousness Based on Zhao On a limitation-by-limitation basis, Petitioner’s contentions of” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Reasons for Obviousness Based on Zhao On a limitation-by-limitation basis, Petitioner’s contentions of “obviousness” are primarily assertions of how a POSITA would have understood Zhao’s disclosures. For example, with regard to claim 1, Petitioner repeatedly asserts how “a POSITA would have understood Zhao” (Pet. 13, 18, 21, 27) and for each limitation contends that Zhao “disclosed or at least rendered obvious” (or a variation thereof) the limitation (id. at 13– 15, 17–18, 21, 23, 25–27). We will, accordingly, address these “obviousness” contentions when addressing the respective limitations.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 7,436,980 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,436,980 - Netflix, Inc. v. Gotv Streaming, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00758 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–14, and 16–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Hariki and Harris; claims 4, 11, 15, and 22–33 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMixed
“in the browser,” e.g., content resulting from HTML files received from the web server. Ex. 2029, 68:15–18. Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that customizing” the “application program environment or display and sound aspects of the device” using a UI content package “would mean that the converted resources (i.e., ‘custom configuration’) of the UI content package were applicable to all HTML files received from the web server and displayed” by the web browser program. Ex. 1002 ¶ 159; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 24, 42.” slip op. at 105
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exclude evidence (Paper 30) is dismissed as moot; and” slip op. at 134
Patent outcomesUS 8,478,245 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,478,245 - Netflix, Inc. v. Gotv Streaming, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00757 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 12–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Hariki and Harris; claims 3, 11, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“Alleged Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness (i) General Principles Before reaching a conclusion about obviousness, we consider evidence concerning objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Apple, 839 F.3d at 1048. For such evidence to have substantial weight, the patentee “must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220. “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” Id. (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). The patentee “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A rebuttable presumption of nexus arises “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Whether a rebuttable presumption of nexus arises “turns on the nature of the claims and the specific facts.” Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The presumption analysis should consider the unclaimed features in the product tied to the objective evidence to assess their significance and impact on the correspondence between the patented invention and the product. Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2022). When, “for example, the patented invention is only a small component of the product tied to the objective evidence,” and thus the product is not coextensive with the patented invention, “there is no presumption of nexus.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Absent a presumption of nexus, the patentee may prove nexus by showing that the objective evidence resulted directly from “the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–74; see In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). For example, “[a] prima facie case of nexus is generally made out when the patentee shows both that there is commercial success, and that the thing (product or method) that is commercially successful is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.” Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Circ. 1988).” slip op. at 113
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMixed
“Conclusion About Obviousness/Nonobviousness For the reasons discussed above, the combined disclosures in Hariki” slip op. at 119
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached
“In our analyses above, we do not rely on any of Exhibits 2023 to 2027. See, e.g., supra §§ III.C.2–III.C.4. Hence, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to exclude evidence as moot. See, e.g., Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Spero, IPR2023-00335, Paper 40 at 24 (PTAB July 15, 2024) (dismissing motion to exclude evidence as moot).” slip op. at 135
Patent outcomesUS 8,989,715 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,989,715 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00806 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 9–12, and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over either Roberts and Asokan or Suumäki; claims 6–8 and 19 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Schmidt’s testimony, has proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a degree in computer engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, along with 2 years of professional experience in the fields of networking and network-based systems or applications, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience,” and would have been “aware of and generally knowledgeable about how devices were provisioned onto wireless networks, along with standards applicable to well-known methods for communication such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC available at the time the ’615 patent was filed.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Institution Decision, we considered the assertions of Petitioner that the terms of the ’615 patent’s claims do not require further construction and can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning. Dec. to Inst. 7 (citing Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–82). Patent Owner also does not assert any express constructions. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. Given the lack of controversy, we need not explicitly adopt or discuss any explicit constructions in this decision. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenMixed
“that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s argument. Although Petitioner is correct that Roberts discloses different embodiments for conveying configuration information, those embodiments are distinct. See Ex. 1004, that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,050,615 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,050,615
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.