• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01336 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 24, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 10, 13, 14, 17, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable, principally due to missing limitations or insufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as “data,” and that Patent Owner’s narrower construction of “first information” and “second information” lacks sufficient support in the intrinsic record. We agree with Petitioner that the ’802 patent Specification defines “information” as data when it uses the phrase “information (i.e., data).” See Ex. 1001, 5:60–62 (“Information (i.e., data) to be transmitted may be received in a baseband digital system 250, such as a wireless digital baseband processor.” (emphasis added)), 11:30–32 (“In this example, the signals 911 and 912 carry the same information (data).” (emphasis added)). As the Federal Circuit has explained, a “specification’s use of ‘i.e.’ signals an intent to define the word to which it refers.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). slip op. at 13

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We find credible and agree with Dr. Cooklev’s testimony that the predistortion signals from tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are cancelled out by Suzuki’s amplifier” 28. Ex. 2013 ¶ 50. Dr. Cooklev supports his opinion by referring to paragraph 1 of Suzuki, which states that Suzuki’s invention is directed to “a multi-band lookup table type predistorter” (such as the one implemented using lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6) that “compensates for a distortion of a power amplifier.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 54; Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is also supported by paragraph 3 of Suzuki, which explains that a conventional digital predistorter uses a lookup table “for linearizing non-linear characteristics of an amplifier.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 3; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Dr. Cooklev further supports his opinion by relying on Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 46 that power amplifier 28 is “subject to distortion compensation” by the predistorter, and that distortion components in the signal output by the amplifier are canceled by “distortion compensation data [that] are read out from the lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 and provided to the adders 13-1 and 13-2, respectively.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 46; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. And, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is supported by Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 47 that the distortion compensation added by adders 13-1 and 13-2 add the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “to perform distortion compensation (addition of predistortion)” to “signals to be transmitted.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 47; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Petitioner agrees that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are added to the respective frequency band from” input signal ST “in order to predistort the output signal, which is then transmitted,” and does not dispute that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 is ultimately cancelled out by the distortion created by amplifier 28. Pet. Reply 8. In light of the above evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Suzuki’s distortion components from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6 (which Petitioner relies on for the first and second digital signals in limitations 10a and 10b) are cancelled out by the distortion created by power amplifier 28 before the signal is ultimately transmitted. We agree with Petitioner that these first and second digital signals include data in the form of distortion compensation data. However, because these signals are cancelled by the distortion from amplifier 28 before transmission, the data from these signals is never transmitted. Thus, the first and second digital signals identified by Petitioner (the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2) do not comprise data “to be transmitted,” as limitations 10a and 10b require.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,924,802 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,924,802
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00973 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Reiner and over Reiner with Takahara; claims 2, 8, and 14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “patentability based solely on arguments considered above in the context of claim 4. See, e.g., PO Resp. 42–43, 47–52. Therefore, Patent Owner has waived any other argument. See Inst. Dec. 44; Paper 10, 10. We adopt Petitioner’s arguments concerning these claims having been obvious over Reiner as our own in this Decision. See Pet. 40–44, 50–56, 57–70, 71; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 134–142, 154–168, 174–221, 227. Accordingly, we conclude a preponderance of the evidence establishes these claims are unpatentable as having been obvious over Reiner.” slip op. at 83

  • Expert testimonyOther
  • Skill levelOther

  Patent outcomesUS 9,184,157 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,184,157
• Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00806 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 15–17, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 14 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed paramagnetic flux paths in Wakuda lacked adequate support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s expert declarant contends that person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree. Ex. 1003 ¶ 33. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 3. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’830 patent specification.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that independent claims 1, 19, and 20 include means plus function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.8 Pet. 3–7; PO Resp. 6–14. An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In particular, the parties agree that the “driving component” and “control component” requirements of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are means plus function limitations. Pet. 3–7; PO Resp. 6–14. Construing a means plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function and 2) identifying in the specification the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Therefore, the specification clearly links the function of “control[ing] supply of power from the power supply to . . . cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency . . . specified by one or more stored values” at least to portions of steps 706 and 708 of the flow diagram algorithm of Figure 7A, as described above. Thus, the control component requires a microprocessor and memory with algorithmic structure including a timing algorithm or similar coding for creating a control output signal that flips to control the direction of current flow through a coil (e.g., coil 514, Fig. 5, coil 626, Fig. 6), where the coil is structure that corresponds to the recited “driving component,” as noted above.11 We adopt the District Court’s conclusion in the Apple litigation that the “control component” structure itself does not require an H-bridge switch, but only requires that the processor generates the “d” inputs to the switch; and further that the structure does not require does not require computing initial default values as specified in step 702 of Figure 7A (i.e., values not specified by a user). Ex. 3001, 30–33, 35. This is in accord with settled law 11 “Rather than using a formal timer mechanism, certain implementations may simply employ counted loops or other simple programming techniques for periodically carrying out tasks.” Ex. 1001, 7:17–20. that limits the structure to that necessary to perform the claimed function. 12 By the same token, we modify the District Court’s construction to the extent it would require, based on such steps as 706, 710, and 716, a specific order of the steps of generating the “p” and “d” values. The claims only require the control component to control the power supply to cause oscillation at a specified frequency and amplitude, but do not require the frequency value to be generated before the amplitude value, or vice versa.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “to include the ability disclosed in Ramsay to allow a user to customize and store parameters associated with haptic effects, such as creating “haptic track files” that specify variations in the amplitude and frequency of the effect over time to achieve a desired effect. Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 15, 25– 28, 37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 192–193). Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated by the desire to expand the functionalities of haptic devices to allow end users to create and customize haptic effects, to provide a fuller haptic experience, and to be able to store haptic effects to save processing power compared to real-time generated effects. Id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 30, 47, 53–57; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–196). Petitioner argues that this making combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both references deal with linear actuators, both disclose storing frequency and amplitude values, and the combination involves routine knowledge of software techniques. Id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:3–9; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 17, 26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 197–198). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to use the H-bridge switch of Rossi as part of the Gregorio actuator drive circuit 16 in the asserted Gregorio-Ramsay combination to periodically switch the polarity of drive signals to electric coil 28 of Gregorio, and thus oscillate magnet 27, under the control of a signal from processor 12 of Gregorio. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 211). Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated because Gregorio does not disclose implementation details and therefore one of ordinary skill would have looked toward teachings like Rossi to fill in those details, and that an H-bridge switch was a well-known example circuit for implementing a change in “current flow direction/polarity” for “push” and “pull” actions in a system, and was a simple, cost-effective, and reliable circuit design. Id. at 56–58 (citing Ex. 1020, Abstr., Figs. 4, 6, 1:65–3:54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 212–217). Petitioner argues that making this combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that it involved known techniques through routine circuit design considerations and software instructions for generating the control signal. Id. at 58 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 218). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to modify the Gregorio-Ramsay-Rossi combination, using the control algorithm disclosed in Aldrich, to replace the monitoring technique of Gregorio with that of Aldrich to maintain a resonance frequency by incrementing or decrementing the drive frequency. Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:22–28, 4:42–48; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 219). Petitioner’s expert provides implementation details of Aldrich, including that the Aldrich hill-climb technique would use a Boolean value to indicate whether the frequency was being increased, with local variables set to default values, and use integer values when processing sensor signals. Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 220–222). Petitioner argues that these modifications would have been motivated to improve the Gregorio system using the Aldrich feedback algorithm for targeting a resonant frequency, given that the Gregorio approach had shortcomings that required a monitoring period with reduced haptic feedback, receiving weak EMF signals. Id. at 61–62 (citing Ex. 2004, 3:65–5:55, 5:63–65; Ex. 1021, 1–3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 223–227). Petitioner argues that making this combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that it involved known techniques for improvement to yield predictable results, readily implemented via software executed by the microprocessor. Id. at 62–63 (citing Ex. 2004, 2:44–50; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 229). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,941,830 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,941,830
• Teladoc Health, Inc. v. Data Health Partners, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,151,142
• Teladoc Health, Inc. v. Data Health Partners, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00616 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 11–17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable because the petition lacked evidence supporting the proposed missing-data alert modification.

  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” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the separately listed “goals, a plan of action, and thresholds,” should be considered distinct elements that cannot exist as the “same element” and therefore must be separately taught by the art. However, we agree with Petitioner that the claims and Specification describe the elements as interrelated whereby one may interact the other, even if they are separate elements. See Google, 92 F.4th at 1059 (“The proper construction of the term must allow for any of the five claimed inputs to potentially be used to calculate another claimed input.”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “modify Douglas with Wager to “ensure that the assigned physician had the capacity to effectively treat the patient,” given the number and variety of patients in Douglas’s system. Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:6–14, 6:36–7:4, Figs. 51, 57; Ex. 1012 ¶ 129). Petitioner asserts that Wager addresses this problem by presenting the staff manager “with a suite of provider assignment options and alternatives, to automatically organize and drive assignment ratios and other assignment parameters and options with compliance, capacity, best practice and other criteria taken into account.” Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1012 ¶ 128). Petitioner further argues that the combination “would have also helped ensure that the assigned physician had the capacity to effectively treat the patient” because Wager’s interface effectively manages capacity issues against fluctuating clinical demands, thereby increasing quality of care for the patient. Id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6, 8, 20; Ex. 1012 ¶ 129). Patent Owner makes six different arguments that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Douglas with Wager. PO Resp. 36–46. As discussed below, Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s articulated reasons to combine the references, because Patent Owner’s arguments are inconsistent with KSR’s “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness. See 550 U.S. at 415.” slip op. at 44

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Finally, Patent Owner argues that “Douglas teaches against accomplishing its goals in an in-person setting like the one to which Wager is directed.” PO Resp. 43–45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4, 5, 11, 13; Ex. 2005 ¶ 108; Ex. 2006, 66:6–19). Patent Owner argues that Douglas’s system remotely monitors patients to avoid the costs and inconvenience of in-person programs. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 1:29–35, 2:5–7; Ex. 2005 ¶ 109; Ex. 2006, 67:16–68:2). Patent Owner adds that Douglas’s teaching of office visits does not contradict the “remote only” argument, but instead, reinforces the patient’s desire to remain with their original physician, “instead of utilizing the proposed Douglas-Wager system to reassign the patient to a new physician.” Id. at 45. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Douglas teaches away from the combination with Wager. Douglas’s preference for remote medicine does not criticize or discourage office visits or the combination with Wager’s in-person setting. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from . . . alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”). Accordingly, there is no teaching away from the combination with Wager’s computerized system for assigning patients to physicians.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 11,144,554 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,144,554
• Luminex International Co., Ltd. / Menard, Inc. v. Signify Holdings B.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01469 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–15, and 18–20 are unpatentable; claims 8, 16, and 17 are not determined unpatentable under the asserted prior-art grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “G. Analysis 1. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we disagree with Patent Owner that Menard is a “real party in interest” under § 315(b). See Resp. 77–82; Sur-reply 27–28. First, the circumstances here differ materially from the circumstances in Ventex. There, two agreements defined the relationship between Ventex (the petitioner and manufacturer of Heatwave fabric) and Seirus (the alleged real party in interest and purchaser of Heatwave fabric). Ventex, IPR2017- 00651, Paper 152 at 7 & n.8. First, a 2013 Supplier Agreement “prevented Ventex from selling to Seirus competitors” and included an indemnity provision requiring Ventex to indemnify Seirus for losses arising from Ventex’s failure to perform certain obligations. Id. at 7, 14. Second, a 2016 Exclusive Manufacturing Agreement provided that Ventex would manufacture the Heatwave fabric only for Seirus in exchange for Seirus’s payment of an exclusivity fee. Id. at 7. Columbia (the patent owner) accused Seirus products incorporating the Heatwave fabric of infringing the patent at issue, and Columbia served Seirus with a complaint alleging patent infringement in 2014 more than two years before Ventex filed a petition in 2017. Id. at 5, 7. When determining that Seirus was a “real party in interest” under § 315(b), the Board reasoned that “Ventex and Seirus had a specially structured, preexisting, and well established business relationship with one another, including indemnification and exclusivity arrangements.” Ventex, IPR2017-00651, Paper 152 at 10; see id. at 12. Additionally, the Board noted that certain evidence “suggest[ed] that” slip op. at 32

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “G. Analysis 1. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we disagree with Patent Owner that Menard is a “real party in interest” under § 315(b). See Resp. 77–82; Sur-reply 27–28. First, the circumstances here differ materially from the circumstances in Ventex. There, two agreements defined the relationship between Ventex (the petitioner and manufacturer of Heatwave fabric) and Seirus (the alleged real party in interest and purchaser of Heatwave fabric). Ventex, IPR2017- 00651, Paper 152 at 7 & n.8. First, a 2013 Supplier Agreement “prevented Ventex from selling to Seirus competitors” and included an indemnity provision requiring Ventex to indemnify Seirus for losses arising from Ventex’s failure to perform certain obligations. Id. at 7, 14. Second, a 2016 Exclusive Manufacturing Agreement provided that Ventex would manufacture the Heatwave fabric only for Seirus in exchange for Seirus’s payment of an exclusivity fee. Id. at 7. Columbia (the patent owner) accused Seirus products incorporating the Heatwave fabric of infringing the patent at issue, and Columbia served Seirus with a complaint alleging patent infringement in 2014 more than two years before Ventex filed a petition in 2017. Id. at 5, 7. When determining that Seirus was a “real party in interest” under § 315(b), the Board reasoned that “Ventex and Seirus had a specially structured, preexisting, and well established business relationship with one another, including indemnification and exclusivity arrangements.” Ventex, IPR2017-00651, Paper 152 at 10; see id. at 12. Additionally, the Board noted that certain evidence “suggest[ed] that” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the ’336 patent’s effective filing date would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optics, or physics with at least three years of experience working in the design of LED lights or lighting fixtures; a master’s degree in one of the above disciplines with at least two years of experience; or equivalent experience.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26–29). Dr. Eden’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertion. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 27–28. Patent Owner “adopts for purposes of this proceeding only” Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Resp. 10 (citing Pet. 14). We adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’336 patent as” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “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, “its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Roku, Inc., 140 F.4th 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (noting that the Board did not err by requiring “a nexus to the challenged claims as opposed to the patent as a whole”). “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220 (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, 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” slip op. at 76

  Patent outcomesUS 10,299,336 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,299,336
• Luminex International Co., Ltd. / Menard, Inc. v. Signify Holdings B.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00101 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–15, and 18–20 are unpatentable; claims 8, 16, and 17 are not shown unpatentable under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner

    “G. Analysis 1. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we” slip op. at 32

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner

    “III. WHETHER THE PETITION IS TIME BARRED The parties dispute whether the Petition is time barred based on a” slip op. at 18

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

    “vacated the panel’s decision denying institution. Paper 12, 6. Among other things, the Director determined based on a “review of the current record” that (1) Menard is not a real party in interest in this proceeding and (2) Menard is not a privy of Petitioner. Id. at 5. Further, the Director remanded the case to the panel and instructed the panel “to determine whether the Petition presents a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and to determine whether to institute inter partes review accordingly.” Id. at 5–6.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenMixed

    “U.S. Patent No. 10,299,336 B2 (“the ’336 patent”) (Exhibit 1001). For the reasons explained below, a preponderance of the evidence shows that claims 1–7, 9–15, and 18–20 in the ’336 patent are unpatentable and does not show that claims 8, 16, and 17 are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2024).” slip op. at 2

  Patent outcomesUS 10,299,336 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,299,336
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00175 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Biswas and Kumar; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The parties submit that no claim construction is necessary. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 15. We have not been presented with the need to construe any claim terms for this Decision. D.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Biswas and Kumar. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have known to use the masking techniques exemplified by Kumar to implement the disclosed operation in Biswas of edge routers providing hosts with port number ranges. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 97–101. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Biswas and Kumar.” slip op. at 13

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

    “This disclosure is inconsistent with any suggestion that the Fangman system, when routing a telephone call to its destination, identifies the private IP address of the destination telephone by determining the port range to which the port number of the destination telephone belongs. When Fangman describes the NAPPT process, it does not indicate that port ranges are used, but rather repeatedly states that port numbers are used: The [service gateway] receives a data packet from the IP device, including a public destination IP address . . . a destination port number . . . and source information, NAPPTs the data packet, using the [public destination IP address] and the [destination port number] to identify the [IP telephone] . . . . Ex. 1024, code (57). Performing NAPPT on the data packet received from the destination may include using the public destination IP address and the destination port number to uniquely identify the IP telephone, and changing the public destination IP address to a private source IP address of the IP telephone while leaving the destination port number unchanged. Ex. 1024, 4:28–33. The SG 170 may maintain a table of semi-permanent mappings of the external IP address and ports to the internal hosts and ports. Ex. 1024, 8:49–51.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,693,369 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,693,369
• Billerud Aktiebolag (Publ) v. Westrock MWV, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2025 · IPR2023-01206 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 25–26 are allowed, while 24 and 27 are denied for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are also not admissible as expert testimony because Mr. Wirén is not “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 703. “To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Mr. Wirén does not meet our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Section II.B, supra. That definition is based on the undisputed testimony of Messrs. Zotterman and Klass. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. Although Mr. Wirén has a Master’s of Science in chemical engineering, he lacks any experience or specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 2011, 12:1–10, 19:6–25, 20:2–7. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are the testimony of Mr. Wirén and should be excluded from evidence because Mr. Wirén is not a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. PO MTE 5–6, 9; Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Unless a patent lawyer is also a qualified technical” slip op. at 61

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based on the testimony of the parties’ witnesses, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related degree, with three to five years of experience in paperboard manufacturing, or a master’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, or mechanical engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’142 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “A claim construction that excludes a particular element is viewed as a “negative limitation.” Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847 Fed. App’x 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). “[S]uch exclusions must find support either in ‘the words of the claim’ or through an ‘express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.’” Id. (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an intent to define the term.’” Id. (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Similarly, disclaimer or disavowal requires that the specification or prosecution history demonstrate that the invention does not include a particular feature. Id. Here, we find no claim language, lexicography, or disclaimer in the ’142 Patent or its file history that would support defining a “hot-hard calender” as requiring that only one of the two rollers be heated to an elevated temperature.” slip op. at 12

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

    “a contact surface of said thermo-roller is heated to an elevated temperature of at least 250°F.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the temperature limitation is taught by the combination of Fugitt and Papermaking. Pet. 32–34. Fugitt discloses that “[t]he rolls of the calender may be steam heated.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 26. In a section titled “Heated Rolls,” Papermaking discloses that “Steam can be used up to 170°C [338°F] surface temperature.” Ex. 1010, 95, 98. Petitioner is thus correct that, “[w]hile Fugitt teaches that a hot calender may be steam heated, Papermaking clarifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that steam heated thermo-rollers may reach up to 338°F.” Pet. 36. Based on these disclosures, we are persuaded by Mr. Zotterman’s testimony that it would have been “obvious to heat the thermo-roller of Fugitt to at least 250°F.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 159. combine Fugitt and Papermaking because of Papermaking’s status as a “trusted handbook[],” because both references disclose a method of manufacturing a paperboard structure with hot calendering,” and “because of the known advantages of heated rollers.” Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157, 159, 162. Petitioner’s contention is supported by Papermaking’s disclosures that, for cartonboard, “[p]recalendering is used before the coater to reduce roughness and porosity” and “[h]igh thermo roll temperatures (in some cases over 200°C) result in bulk savings because of the temperature gradient.” Ex. 1005, 80–82; see also Pet. 38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 164 (citing these disclosures). Papermaking’s disclosed range of “up to 170°C [338°F]” for steam- heated rolls (Ex. 1010, 98), overlaps the claimed range of “at least 250°F.” Patent Owner agrees. Tr. 27:11–13. “If the relevant comparison between a disputed claim limitation and the prior art pertains to a range of overlapping values, ‘. . . even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 946 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “[S]uch an overlap creates a presumption of obviousness, and . . . the burden of production falls upon the patentee to come forward with pertinent evidence that the overlapping range would not have been obvious in light of the prior art.” Id. (citing E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,293,142 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,293,142
• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641

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.