- Smaxtec Inc. / Smaxtec Animal Care GmbH v. St Reproductive Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01067 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–7, 9, and 10 are unpatentable: claims 5 and 6 are anticipated by Harvey and Riskey, claim 7 is obvious over Harvey and Rettedal, and claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Harvey and …
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Considering the entire record, we determine that Petitioner “did not make out its obviousness case in its petition” and its arguments on reply “effectively abandoned its petition in favor of a new argument.” Wasica at 1286. To the extent Petitioner asserts the claims would have been obvious over Harvey and Riskey in the Petition, it does so using a merely conclusory statement that “[t]o the extent Patent Owner alleges that either Harvey or Riskey fails to teach any claim element, that element is provided by the other reference.” See Pet. 42; Wasica at 1286. And, as discussed in our Institution Decision, the Petition at a minimum does not explain what reference is the primary versus second reference, and what elements should be combined to reach the claimed invention. See Sisvel, 82 F.4th at 1364. reference to be modified with Riskey’s bolus and data compression. See Pet. Reply 15–17. Rather than explaining how its original petition was correct, Petitioner’s subsequent arguments amount to an entirely new theory of prima facie obviousness absent from the Petition. See Wasica, 853 F.3d at 1286; see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute”). We decline to engage in this new argument. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not met is burden to show that claims 5 and 6 would have been obvious over Harvey and Riskey. G. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 7 over Harvey and Rettedal” slip op. at 54
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Riskey discloses “said sensor signal varies based on a corresponding change in one or more physiological parameters of said ruminant animal” (limitation 5[B]). We find Riskey’s description of temperature sensors to be persuasive evidence on this issue. Riskey discloses sensors for measuring changing animal characteristics, e.g., temperature, over time. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35, 44; see also id. ¶¶ 75, 76 (detecting temperature changes). We further credit Dr. Young’s testimony that one skilled in the art would understand that generated sensor signals, e.g., temperature, would change over time, whereby the sensor signal varies based on any corresponding change in the ruminant physiological parameter that the signal represents. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84, 85; see Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“This modest flexibility in the rule that ‘anticipation’ requires that every element of the claims appear in a single reference accommodates the reference; that is, where technological facts are known to those in the field of the invention.”). We consider Dr. Kan’s testimony that Riskey is silent as to details about the sensor signal, but are not persuaded because the testimony appears to contradict Riskey’s disclosure of a bolus including sensors for monitoring changes in animal characteristics, generating animal characteristic messages, i.e., signals, and wirelessly transmitting data corresponding to the monitored characteristics. See Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 170–174; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 63, 67, 68, 75–78, 101. Given Riskey’s express description of monitoring animal characteristics over time, we agree with Petitioner’s argument that Riskey discloses that said sensor signal varies based on changes to the animal’s physiological parameters.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of the claimed priority date would have “had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related or equivalent field, and three or more years of experience researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating sensor systems for humans or other animals.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35) (emphasis added). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 19–20). On the entire record, we determine this level of skill, with the exception of the open-ended phrases “at least” and “or more,” which we remove from Petitioner’s proposal, comports with the qualifications a person 5 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), i.e., as construed in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Id. at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. Neither party expressly seeks a specific claim construction or definition for any claim term. See Pet. 10; PO Resp. 12. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to interpret claim 7 in view of the Specification, we address that argument in our discussion of claim 7, below. See infra, § III.G.3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing 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.”)). D. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 5 and 6 by Riskey” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 10,231,644 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,231,644 - Silencerco Weapons Research, LLC v. Huxwrx Safety Co. LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01214 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 12–14, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable; the motion to amend was granted for substitute claims 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37–40, and 42, and denied for …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The ’750 patent states that “the fluid pathway can be a radially serpentine fluid pathway which causes the fluids received in the off axis chamber to flow back and forth around a radius of the off axis chamber,” also using “radially serpentine fluid pathway” to refer to this rotation around the chamber radius “while also traversing a length of the off axis chamber.” Ex. 1001, 4:34–41 (emphasis added). This is the only description of “radially” serpentine flow in the ’750 patent. Notably, the ’750 patent does not use “radially” or “serpentine” to describe a fluid pathway “which causes the fluids to spiral around the central chamber within the off axis chamber along a length of the off axis chamber,” instead referring to such a fluid pathway as a “helical fluid pathway.” Id. at 4:41–44. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Inst. Dec. 11–12. We explained that the flow path depicted above, which is equivalent to that of Figure 14 of the ’750 patent, “flows circumferentially about the central chamber.” Id. at 14. We maintain this interpretation. Stated differently, the depicted flow is around a longitudinal axis of the chamber. See MTA PG 6 (describing the flow path depicted above as “a back and forth flow path around a longitudinal axis of the off axis chamber; that is, a circumferentially serpentine pathway”); see also Ex. 2003 ¶ 40 (Dr. Neitzel describing the flow path depicted above as “a back and forth flow path around a longitudinal axis of the off axis chamber”). The flow is not around a radius of the chamber, which Patent Owner recognizes is required for a flow path to be radially serpentine. See PO Resp. 10 (“Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s conclusion in the [Institution Decision] that ‘radially serpentine’ as recited in the claims of the ’750 patent means a back and forth flow around a radius of the off axis chamber.” (citation modified)); PO Sur-reply 2 (agreeing that “radially serpentine” requires “a back and forth flow around a radius of the off axis chamber”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor its witness, Mr. Nixon, has explained adequately how Thurler’s disclosure of its tube e being perforated for two thirds of its length “contemplates other lengths of perforations.” See Pet. 48; Ex. 1013 ¶ 212. Such conclusory assertions fail to apprise us of why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Thurler’s device in contradiction to Thurler’s explicit disclosure. We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for modifying Thurler’s device. First, the modification is not a matter of design choice because the perforations allow the gases generated by firing the projectile to pass into the space between tubes e and g where they partially expand. See Ex. 1015, 1:84–91. Thus, modifying the number of perforations necessarily affects the flow of gases through the device. Next, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Nixon explains adequately how reducing the amount of perforation in tube e results in an increased fluid length. See Pet. 49; Ex. 1013 ¶ 213. Rather, although less fluid may enter into tube e with Petitioner’s modification, it appears that that fluid would travel the same distance along tubes e and h as in Thurler’s unmodified device. Finally, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Nixon explains adequately how limiting the amount of gases generated by firing the projectile from entering the expansion zones of tubes g and h provides any benefit. To the contrary, limiting the amount of gases in the manner suggested by Petitioner would reduce the suppression of such gases, resulting in a less effective device. Moreover, Thurler discloses that “there is still a space of a few millimeters between [tubes] e and g which is necessary” to prevent the application of “pressure on the projectile causing the same to deviate.” Ex. 1015, 1:106–2:3. Thus, Petitioner’s modification would not result in the passage of gases occurring only at the first three of Thurler’s tubular sleeves as asserted by Petitioner. Additionally, in the Institution Decision, we explained that Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning to support the proposed modification of Thurler’s device regarding parent claim 1 to have concentric tubes around the central tube e. See Inst. Dec. 29–31. This shortcoming, which we maintain, carries through to dependent claim 6. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown, by a” slip op. at 26
- ScopeMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“We agree with Petitioner that the amendment is broadening. Petitioner’s witness testified that he “wouldn’t call a BB gun a high energy device or a high energy weapon.” Paper 33, 18:4–6. Thus, per Petitioner’s witness, use of a BB gun would not be covered by claim 22, no matter what is discharged from the BB gun. However, if high energy material is discharged from that same BB gun, that use would be covered by proposed substitute claim 43 (assuming the other claim recitations were met). See id. at 21:10–12 (Dr. Neitzel agreeing that “if something produces a high energy material, it automatically is a high energy weapon”). Thus, by deleting “high energy device” and replacing that language with “weapon,” proposed substitute claim 43 impermissibly broadens the scope of claim 22. See Sisvel Int'l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“But if a substitute claim ‘is broader in any respect it is considered to be broader than the original claim even though it may be narrower in other respects.’” (citation modified) (quoting Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); see also Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 6 (“A patent owner may not seek to broaden a challenged claim in any respect that enlarges the scope of the claims of the patent . . . . Likewise, a proposed substitute claim may not remove a feature of the claim in a manner that broadens the scope of the claims of the challenged patent.”).” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,286,750 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,286,750 - Smaxtec Inc. / Smaxtec Animal Care GmbH v. St Reproductive Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00885 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 15–25 are unpatentable: claims 1–2 are anticipated by Trevarthen, and the challenged claims are also obvious over the listed combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–4 and 15–25 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,823,515 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’515 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 10, “Prelim. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-Reply (Paper 13, “Prelim. Sur-Reply”). Upon consideration of these filings and the preliminary evidence of record, we determined that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’515 patent (Paper 16, “Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”). Thus, we instituted review with respect to all of the challenged claims. slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“statistics in the absence of evidence of unique downloads or individuals. Even if the download numbers do not exactly represent unique downloads by unique individuals, the evidence shows that Trevarthen was downloaded, and therefore distributed, prior to the filing date of the ’515 patent. Accordingly, we find this evidence weighs in favor of Trevarthen’s public accessibility.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“retrieves sensed animal temperature information from the RFID device” and “further teaches that these temperature measurements are analyzed to detect ‘fluctuations,’ ‘a rise,’ and/or ‘anomalies’ that might indicate illness or oestrus.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005, 121–122). Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that a “POSA would understand that to perform such analysis, the animal temperature information for each animal is necessarily stored in the” slip op. at 36
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther
“Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1040, 1041, and 1044. Paper 36. We do not rely on any of Exhibits 1040, 1041, and 1044 to decide this matter. Thus we dismiss Patent Owner’s motion to exclude as moot.” slip op. at 82
Patent outcomesUS 8,823,515 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,823,515 - Teladoc Health, Inc. v. Data Health Partners, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00617 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 9–14, 16–18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6 and 7 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish their missing limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare field as well as 1–2 years of experience with health information technology, including specific experience with computer-based systems for recording, tracking, and analyzing patient health information.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 36). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bryan Bergeron. Ex. 1012 ¶ 36. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.; Ex. 2005 ¶ 32. On the full record, we determine Petitioner’s proposed level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’142 patent and the prior art of record. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the Specification supports construing “selection” as including inputs to a user interface, thereby “assigning” a client to a provider within the system. For example, the Specification describes a user interface including selection components. Ex. 1001, 10:45– 48 (“the user interface . . . may display . . . selection or display components”), 12:19–22 (authorized users may make selections by doubling tapping a touchscreen). The Specification further discloses that the “administrators may have complete access to the service providers and the clients to assign the clients to individual service providers through the user interface.” Id. at 11:13–18 (reference numerals removed, emphasis added). Taken together, we agree with Petitioner that assigning clients in response to selections of a user interface is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims and the Specification. We decline to read Patent Owner’s additional limitations of “deliberate and active choice” into the claim, because these additional limitations lack support both in the claim language and the Specification. We do agree with Patent Owner’s argument that assigning and selection must be distinct elements, because they are separately listed and assigning happens in response to selection(s).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Specification defines “projected closure date” as the date at which a goal will end. However, we agree with Petitioner that this definition is not limited to final goals, and would include the end date of any goal, including intermediate goals. Accordingly, we interpret “projected closure date” as the date at which any goal will end. We apply that definition below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that “Petitioner does not identify any selection made by Douglas’s administrator which may result in assignment of a provider.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Pet. 19–20; Ex. 1002, 6:33–7:13, Fig. 2). First, Patent Owner construes “selection” as “a deliberate and active choice by an administrator,” and argues that “Douglas discloses no such selection.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:13–18; Ex. 2005 ¶ 66). Instead, “Douglas’s administrator merely inputs pre-determined information from the prescription form” that the physician provided and thereby selected. Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:33–7:13, Fig. 2; Ex. 2005 ¶ 67). We find this argument not commensurate with the claim scope. As discussed above in claim construction, we decline to read Patent Owner’s additional limitations of “deliberate and active choice” into the selection limitation as lacking support both in the claim language and the Specification. Supra, Section III.C.1. Second, Patent Owner argues that Douglas does not teach assigning “in response to” an administrator’s selection. PO Resp. 16–17. Instead, Patent Owner argues that Douglas’s “information entered by the case advisor was provided by the physician.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 6:33–7:16). Again, we find this argument not commensurate with the claim scope, as the claim does not require a single assignment of client to provider. In other words, even if Douglas’s prescription information qualifies as a first assignment of client to provider, Douglas teaches the administrator using the same information to assign the client to a provider within the system, thereby meeting the required claim limitation.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,151,142 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,151,142 - Google LLC v. DH International Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01322 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10–12, and 19 are obvious over Mooney and over Mooney in view of Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Pre-Institution Reply, Pre-Institution Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’294 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’294 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“the claims nor the specification of the ’294 Patent require such a narrow reading of the term ‘activation cue’” as that proposed by Patent Owner. Reply 1 (citing Prelim. Resp. 9–10). Operative claim language—“a cue receiver operatively linked to said electronic circuit for receiving an activation cue from a source external to said cellular phone”—does not limit “activation cue” to a predetermined bit sequence or predetermined indicator as argued by Patent Owner. Claim 1 further recites the “data conveyance switching element . . . being assigned a first state upon an activation cue having been received by said cue receiver,” which also does not limit “activation cue” to a predetermined bit sequence or predetermined indicator. Both parties, moreover, cite the same description of the structure and function of the “activation cue” in the ’294 patent: “This activation cue is in the form of a data communication of a specific type which will be recognized by electronic device 10 as an activation cue, for example a predetermined bit sequence.” Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:24–27); Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:24–27); Sur-Reply 1 (citing same). The recited “activation cue,” when read in context and in view of the” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“for the recited “data conveyance switching element” pursuant to §112, sixth Petition characterizes the corresponding structure as “a physical structure, a virtual program, or both because the ’294 patent explains that a switching element ‘can be any type of device allowing data to be conveyed according to alternate data conveyance operations,’ such as ‘a series of instructions programmed onto [a] microchip’ or a ‘decisional logical circuit,’ and ‘can be a physical structure, a virtual program, or both.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 9:28– 31, 9:40–41; Lipoff Decl. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). The Petition identifies the claimed function as switching between inactive and activated states based on whether or not the cellular phone receives an activation cue. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:4–9, 4:18–23, 5:48–53; Ex. 1003 ¶ 64).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construction of an “external data exchange device” as a data transceiver coupled to a circuit that carries out the function of exchanging data. Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:4–6, 12:62, 13:28, Figs. 1, 3, 4; Ex. 2001 ¶ 48); see Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:14–17, 4:7–14, 9:3–6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–68). Patent Owner states that “[a]n external data exchange device is not a transceiver but a device with a transceiver.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 48). On this preliminary record, we need not construe “external data exchange device” to decide whether or not to institute. To the extent there is a dispute over the plain meaning of “external data exchange device,” the parties are invited to address it in detail in their briefs following institution. On the present record, we determine that no further construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute a trial in this case. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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)). The parties are free to address any further claim construction issues bearing on this inter partes review following institution.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,022,294 - Google LLC v. DH International Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01321 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“adequately support the assertion that Ong, or Ong in combination with Hoff, discloses, teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious independent claims 1, 10 and 11. Therefore, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–13 are obvious over Ong and Hoff. See, e.g., Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’333 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of network-enabled consumer devices, and familiarity with payment cards, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–50). Patent Owner states that it “agrees with Petitioner on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–32).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We also credit the testimony of Mr. Zaheer that a “POSITA would understand that disabling the electronic credit card of Ong refers to the functioning of the credit card and not switching between data or data flows within the credit card as claimed in the ’333 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 95). Mr. Zaheer’s testimony is consistent with the disclosures in Ong and the ’333 patent and with Mr. Lipoff’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 62 (“The card also includes a ‘disablement means’ for disabling use of the electronic credit card remotely by a card issuer or other describes is not the state of the claimed switching element because once disabled, the card cannot be reenabled; rather, it must be re-initialized.” Prelim. Resp. 34–35 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 99–100). Thus, we fail to see how Ong teaches or suggests the “data conveyance switching element” recited in limitation [1.e].” slip op. at 17
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc (quoting Magnum Oil)). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. evidence and argument according to the above-referenced standard. We determine that the Petition does not satisfy the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,628,333 - Uipath, Inc. v. Rule 14 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01306 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, failing to support its proposed obviousness combinations with a reason to combine.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Further, as Patent Owner notes, Petitioner’s declarant testimony is identical to the Petition and does not cite to any evidence either in the asserted references or other documents to support a reason to combine the references. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 80, 93. In brief, “[t]he declaration does not Srivastava] determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.” Xerox, IPR2022- 00624, Paper 12 at 5. Accordingly, we give little weight to Petitioner’s declarant testimony because the declaration merely offers conclusory assertions without underlying factual support and repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s conclusory arguments. Id.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in software development with a basic knowledge of database searching techniques.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28). Patent Owner’s declarant adopts Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 6. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’712 patent. See Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and need for testimony is not shown”).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner notifies the Board of two terms being disputed in the co-pending litigation: (1) “expanding search terms of the query,” and (2) “accuracy threshold.” Pet. 12–15. For each term, Petitioner contends the “Board need not resolve” or address the dispute. See id. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. We agree with Petitioner that we need not resolve the claim construction disputes from the co-pending litigation. Accordingly, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because no such construction is necessary to determine whether to institute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,048,712 - Uipath, Inc. v. Rule 14 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01304 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, chiefly because it failed to establish motivation to combine the asserted references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Our reviewing court has emphasized that the “motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023). And it is well-established that “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Despite this flexible standard, our reviewing court cautions that “‘a conclusory assertion with no explanation is inadequate to support a finding that there would have been a motivation to combine’ because ‘[t]his type of finding, without more, tracks the ex post reasoning KSR warned of and fails to identify any actual reason why a skilled artisan would have combined the elements in the manner Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); see also TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board ‘must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’”).” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“identical to the Petition and does not cite to any evidence either in the asserted references or other documents to support a reason to combine the references. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 71. In brief, “[t]he declaration does not provide any technical detail, explanation, or statements supporting why [Dr. Srivastava] determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.” Xerox, Paper 12, 5. Accordingly, we give little weight to Petitioner’s declarant testimony because the declaration merely offers conclusory assertions without underlying factual support and repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s conclusory arguments. Id.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in software development with a basic knowledge of database searching techniques.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). Patent Owner does not address the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’977 patent. See Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and need for testimony is not shown”).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,229,977 - PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01230 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5 for all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“discretionary denial under § 325(d). The Notice Regarding Amendment Options explains that the Board may deny institution under § 325(d) of a requested AIA trial proceeding if a parallel Office proceeding, for example, is in a more advanced stage and involves overlapping issues with the proposed AIA trial proceeding. 84 Fed. Reg. at 16,657 (emphasis added). We find that the EPR is not in a more advanced stage as compared to this proceeding, and therefore does not weigh in favor of the Board exercising discretion to deny institution, despite its overlapping issues with those in the Petition.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review to be instituted unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–5 of the ’336 patent, based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“the art.7 On consideration of the record, specifically the patent and cited prior art, we find Petitioner’s proposed educational levels and subject matter (bachelor’s degree in electrical or mechanical engineering) more appropriate. Specifically, Patent Owner’s reference to a degree in computer science does not appear relevant to the claimed electro-mechanical device. We find Patent Owner’s proposed hands-on experience more persuasive as Petitioner’s definition is too vague (“generally familiar”) to assist our determination. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, would have a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering or mechanical engineering, and would have two years of experience in designing and/or implementing hardware components for computers, servers, and/or other electronic devices. We further determine that more experience could compensate for the absence of a bachelor’s degree. The level of skill is reflected by the testimony of the parties’ declarants and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We determine that the plain meaning of claim 1 supports Patent Owner’s interpretation. Claim 1 recites a body, provided with a fan in center of the body, an illumination area on at least two sides of the fan at top of the body, a power socket and a first connector on one side of the body, and a second connector on another side of the body . . . such that when the power socket on the one side of the body is supplied with power, the fan and the illumination area of the body are respectively driven into rotation and illumination . . . Ex. 1001, 4:5–9 (emphasis added). Claim 1 expressly recites three body locations: “the top of the body,” “one side of the body,” and “another side of the body.” Id. “A power socket and a first connector” are listed together in the same clause “on one side of the body.” Id. The plain language of the claim further supports that “one side of the body” includes both power socket and first connector, as the limitation is repeated later in the claim: “the power socket on the one side of the body.” See id. at 4:12 (emphasis added). The location of the second connector is defined in relation to the one side with the first connector. See id. at 4:5–9. Accordingly, the plain meaning of claim 1 defines three sides of the claimed body, a top of the body (with an illumination area on two sides of the fan), one side of the body with a power socket and a first connector, and another side of the body with a second connector. See id. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no other claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,690,336 - PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01214 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–22 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Thurler anticipates at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A decision to institute may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a trial, the Board will institute on all challenges raised in the petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a relevant technical degree in 5 At this stage of the proceeding, the parties have not directed us to any such objective evidence. Mechanical Engineering, Fluid Engineering, or the like, and 2-3 years of experience researching, designing, manufacturing, or assessing [energy suppression devices (“ESD”)], though less education may be sufficient with additional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 1. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for petitioner
“Thus, both the ’750 patent and its prosecution history support Petitioner’s contention that a “radially serpentine” fluid flow is one in which the fluid flows back and forth around a radius of the off axis chamber. We see no support, however, for Petitioner’s assertion that a serpentine flow requires two or more changes of direction. See Pet. 17. Petitioner states that “‘back and forth’ movement requires at least two changes in direction. Specifically, to come ‘back,’ an object must have first gone ‘forth.’” Pet. 17; see also Ex. 1013 ¶ 130 (presenting essentially identical assertions). However, both Petitioner and its witness, Mr. Nixon, identify only a single change in direction – from “forth” to “back.” Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Nixon provide any support for their assertions that two changes of direction are required, and we decline to adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s interpretation of “radially serpentine.” Instead, we interpret “back and forth,” as used in the ’750 patent, to be satisfied by only a single change in direction.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s interpretation of Superguide. There, the Federal Circuit “conclude[d] that the plain and ordinary meaning of . . . the phrase ‘at least one of’ means ‘one or more.’” Superguide, 358 F.3d at 886 (citing Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The court then considered what the phrase modified and determined that, because “[t]he phrase ‘at least one of’ precedes a series of categories of criteria, and the patentee used the term ‘and’ to separate the categories of criteria,” the phrase “connotes a conjunctive list” and required selecting at least one value for each category. Id. (emphasis added). For example, in SuperGuide, the claim phrase “storing at least one of a desired program start time, a desired program end time, a desired program service, and a desired program type” was interpreted as requiring storing at least one desired program start time, at least one desired program end time, and so forth. Id. at 884, 886. Neither courts nor the Board has interpreted SuperGuide as setting forth a per se rule that the use of “at least one of” followed by “and” necessarily connotes a conjunctive list, and both courts and the Board have found SuperGuide inapplicable when the listed items following “at least one of” are not categories containing many possible values. See Apple Inc. v. CPC Patent Techs. PTY, Ltd., IPR2022-00601, Paper 31 at 28 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2023) (collecting cases). Here, Petitioner does not persuade us that “axially serpentine” and “radially serpentine” are categories. Notably, for each of these terms, both Petitioner and Mr. Nixon provide only a single example of such a fluid pathway. See Pet. 18; Ex. 1013 ¶ 134. Such identification of only a single instance does not persuade us that these terms identify categories of criteria. See Superguide, 358 F.3d at 886 (“Each category is further comprised of many possible values.”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and on this preliminary record, we interpret “at least one of” as recited in the claims of the ’750 patent to have its plain and ordinary meaning of one or more.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,286,750
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.