• Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01261 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach the claimed predetermined cycle for controlling distal fluid flow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(1) a person with a B.S. in engineering or an equivalent field, with two-four years of academic or industry experience in aspiration embolectomy and thrombectomy or comparable industry experience who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including a physician, to develop embolectomy or thrombectomy devices; or (2) an interventional neurosurgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in embolectomy or thrombectomy procedures, and who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including an engineer, to develop such a medical device. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 48). Petitioner also contends that, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner states that for purposes of its PO Response, it “accepts ¶ 44). We adopt Petitioner’s characterization because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’402 patent and the cited prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8

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

    “specification explicitly includes sensors similar to those in the prior art in support of their argument that the claimed “predetermined cycle” must not exclude the use of such sensors. Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:55–33:7, 40:66–41:5, 44:9–29). We reviewed the portions of the specification cited by Petitioner. We agree with Patent Owner that one excerpt discussing sensor use appears to be directed to triggering the predetermined cycle rather than causing timing changes during the cycle itself (Ex. 1001, 32:55–66) (describing use of a pressure sensor to “determine when the vacuum channel 3 is clogged by a thrombus and automatically perform the unclogging procedures described herein”), while another excerpt discusses a sensor that Petitioner that the ’402 patent discusses the use of sensors to “tune” the system and that such “tuning” can be done statically (setting the cycle timing in advance) or dynamically (adjusting the timing during the cycle itself). See Ex. 1001, 48:19–49:50. Overall, we find that these disclosures involving sensors demonstrate that sensors may be used in various ways in different embodiments. However, none of these disclosures explicitly discuss the use of sensors in conjunction with a “pre-determined cycle.” Therefore, we find that the ’402 patent specification’s discussion of “sensors” are not particularly informative as to the appropriate construction of a “predetermined cycle” and do not outweigh the other explicit disclosures of “predetermined cycle” in the patent. We next turn to the other intrinsic evidence discussed by the parties — the prosecution history. As discussed by Patent Owner, in the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner found that Garrison did not teach or suggest a “predetermined cycle” because Garrison’s controller “changed the cycle of opening and closing the valves based on feedback from sensors.” Ex. 1004, 86. We acknowledge that the patent applicant filed subsequent comments during prosecution in which they stated that they “do[] not concede that the Examiner’s characterizations of the terms of the claims and the prior art are correct.” Id. at 29. However, we agree with Patent Owner that the importance of the Examiner’s statement in the Notice of Allowance does not rely on it being an express disclaimer (a standard which it does not meet). PO Sur-reply 8. We also considered Petitioner’s contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of Garrison may have been in error (PO Resp. 16); however, even if this were true, the Examiner’s statement still provides helpful insight into how the Examiner was interpreting the term sensors to change the opening and closing of valves during a cycle was not a “predetermined cycle.” Id. at 86. In sum, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the usage of the term “predetermined cycle” in the ’402 patent specification and prosecution history. Thus, after considering all of the cited evidence, we construe “predetermined cycle” to mean that “the timing of the sequence of valve operations in the cycle is determined beforehand, i.e., fixed, rather than varying based on feedback after operation begins.”” slip op. at 14

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

    “2. Other Terms The parties also provided proposed constructions for the limitations of “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” and “control[ling] fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” See Pet. 15–16; Pet. Reply 1–8; PO Resp. 22–24; PO Sur-Reply 2–6. However, having evaluated the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. 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.”)).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor Mr. Brown propose any combination of Yang and Mullins that does not include Mullins’s pressure sensor in order “to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Indeed, in addressing the “predetermined cycle” limitation, Mr. Brown contends that Mullins discloses a “cycling controller that ‘varies aspiration pressure according to sensed pressure within the catheter lumen.’” Ex.1005 ¶¶ 131–32 (citing, e.g., Ex.1008, 27:40–28:20 (“[a] novel aspect of this pump system is the incorporation of feedback into the pump algorithm in order to produce more effective pressure cycling”)). This use of a sensor to change pressure during a cycle, is not a “predetermined cycle” under our construction. combinations is its discussion of distal end flow control, not for its sensors.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 83). However, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds rely on the combination of Yang and Mullins, especially with regard to Mullins’s disclosure of “a controller” in order “to control fluid flow in and out.” As discussed above, Mullins relies on the sensor-feedback approach in order to control flow and we find that Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence of how the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins would control flow without using Mullins’s sensor feedback approach. See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (error to “consider[] … references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in [them] … that diverge from and teach away from the invention”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of Yang and Mullins discloses or renders obvious “a controller configured to open and close the vacuum valve and the vent valve in a predetermined cycle to change a level of vacuum at the distal end of the catheter and to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective evidence and arguments, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’402 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Yang and Mullins.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,406,402 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,406,402
• Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29

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

    “Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,906,508
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00744 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, and 12–14 were not shown unpatentable because Halbert did not disclose the claimed ranks operating at the specified data rate.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not provide a different assessment of the level of ordinary skill, but Dr. Przybylski states that an individual with the level of experience identified by Petitioner “would have less knowledge and familiarity” than presumed by Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. Dr. Przybylski, however, provides no further discussion explaining this apparent disagreement with Petitioner, nor does he set forth what level of knowledge and familiarity a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. Based on the complete trial record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed skill level is consistent with the level of ordinary skill evidenced by the ’314 patent and the asserted prior art, and we adopt that skill level with the exception of the phrases “at least,” which introduce vagueness as to the amount of experience.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s interpretation. Taking Petitioner’s point that “‘specified data rate’ means only that the data rate is specified in some way” (Pet. Reply 4), we do not see how, once the rate is specified, claim 1’s later recitations of “the specified data rate” could refer to any other rate, as Petitioner’s arguments suggest. Petitioner argues that “it is clear that the ‘specified data rate’ that provides antecedent basis for later recitations of that term is merely the data rate specified for ‘communicat[ing] data’ between the ‘memory module’ and the external ‘memory controller of the computer (alteration by Petitioner). We agree with this statement, and later recitations of “the specified data rate,” therefore, refer to the data rate that is so specified. Petitioner provides no persuasive argument to support its position that later recitations of “the specified data rate” could be satisfied by data rates that are not the “specified data rate.”” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “PO Resp. 19; see also Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 68–72 (Dr. Przybylski’s testimony explaining this annotated figure). Halbert’s Figure 5 is a timing diagram for two consecutive read operations (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16, 37), and Patent Owner includes annotations to show each of ranks 140 and 142 outputting data onto their respective data busses at half the rate that data are output from data interface circuit 120 on the DQ data line. In particular, Halbert explains that each of ranks 140 and 142 is “capable of performing m-bit-wide data transfers.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 30. On a read command, rank 140 sends m-bit-wide data to bi-directional data register 126 on line RDQ0 at the same time that rank 142 sends m-bit-wide data to bi-directional data register 128 on line RDQ1, as shown in Figure 5 between T7n and T8n. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 31–32, 39. Halbert discloses that register 126 or from register 128 to output to buffer 122, which are then output on line DQ. Ex. 1005 ¶ 33. Halbert explains that “[d]ata is serialized from the data registers onto the memory data bus by reading 2m bits into the data registers during one memory device read cycle, and then driving these bits, m at a time, through MUX 124.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 33. As shown in Halbert’s Figure 5, over one clock cycle (T7n–T8n), each of ranks 140 and 142 outputs one piece of m-bit-wide data, and over one clock cycle (T8–T9), those two pieces of m-bit-wide data are output on line DQ to the system memory data bus. Halbert explains that the second read operation proceeds in the same fashion as the first and that “[t]he net result is that the memory data bus transfers 4m bits of data in two memory bus clock cycles (four mbit transfers), with only two data accesses performed at each memory device on the module.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 42. Thus, Halbert’s memory module outputs data to the system memory data bus at twice the rate that each of ranks 140 and 142 outputs data. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 68–73 (Dr. Przybylski’s credible testimony explaining Halbert’s data rates).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,489,314 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,489,314
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00745 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–20 and 22–33 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not adequately explain how the proposed combination would use active and non-active chip select signals.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have been someone with an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering and at least two years working in the field, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and at least three years working the field,” and Petitioner identifies particular knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52).” slip op. at 5

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

    “C. Claim Construction We need not construe expressly any claim terms to decide the issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6

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

    “As outlined above, Petitioner presents reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have included chip select signals in Halbert’s Figure 4 device. See Pet. 20–31 (addressing limitations 15.4 and 15.5). But Petitioner’s contentions about the use of chip select signals do not address sufficiently how Halbert’s Figure 4 device would operate with active and non-active chip select signals, as recited in claim 15. Indeed, as Patent Owner points out (PO Resp. 12), Petitioner’s contentions for limitation 15.6 only rely on Halbert’s Figure 2 prior art device. See Pet. 31–32. Petitioner’s lack of explanation as to how active and non-active signals would affect the operation of Halbert’s Figure 4 device is significant, as explained below.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,489,314 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,489,314
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00291 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 15–17 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not disclose the construed network-based portal residing on a server side of a network.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “network-based portal” as recited in the challenged claims is sufficiently broad to encompass residing at either a client or server side of a network, as Petitioner contends, or is limited to residing at the server side, as Patent Owner contends. On the preliminary record, we declined to adopt Patent Owner’s exclusion of residing at a client side when extending our invitation to the parties to elaborate on their positions. Dec. 11. But we are mindful that “the Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced its initial inclinations were wrong.” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 1 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 19:63, 20:4, 20:6, 20:11, 20:15–16, 20:21–22, 20:29–30, 20:42–43, 20:46–47; see PO Resp. 19 (Patent Owner contending that, because of the repeated recitation of “network-based portal” throughout the body of independent claim 1, the “preamble therefore breath[e]s life and meaning into claim 1”). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects multiple users to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 36. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing applies to the claims that depend from claim 1 because they inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we also conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 2–5, 15, or 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis; that any of claims 7–9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Loveland; nor that” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 10,708,727 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,708,727
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00202 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness grounds did not show a network-based portal residing on the server side of a network.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Drinkware, LLC v. National 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). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). Our evaluation also necessarily remains cognizant that “[i]n 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 3 Petitioner filed a second Declaration by Dr. Almeroth after institution (such that it was not available on the preliminary record), but that Declaration is provided primarily as supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to address objections by Patent Owner to the authenticity of various other exhibits. Ex. 1038 ¶ 2. Dr. Almeroth’s second Declaration otherwise merely incorporates Dr. Almeroth’s “technical opinions” by reference to his first Declaration, without providing any further facts or expressing any further opinions that bear on the merits, including claim construction. Id. ¶ 1. Drinkware, LLC v. National 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). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 24. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–75. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 1 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 20:3, 20:11, 20:20, 20:23, 20:29, 20:31, 20:48, 20:54; see PO Resp. 19 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 1). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects clients to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 34. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 11 and 19. See Pet. 55–57 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 11 relying substantially on analysis of claim 1), 59–60 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 19 relying substantially on analysis of claim 1). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 1– 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,142,810 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,142,810
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00295 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33–67 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed server-side network-based portal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The issue before us is therefore well-defined, namely whether a “network-based portal” as recited in the challenged claims is sufficiently broad to encompass residing at either a client or server side of a network, as Petitioner contends, or is limited to residing at the server side, as Patent Owner contends. On the preliminary record, we declined to adopt Patent Owner’s exclusion of residing at a client side when extending our invitation to the parties to elaborate on their positions. Dec. 23–25. But we are mindful that “the Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 7 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 21:53, 21:58, 22:2, 22:14–15, 22:19, 22:20–21, 22:27, 22:33, 22:38–39; see PO Resp. 28 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 7). Under our adopted construction, Petitioner does not show that the combination of Tanigawa and Hullfish meets the claim requirements of a “network-based portal.” That is, Petitioner’s reliance on a client-resident interface to meet the claim’s recitation of a “network-based portal” is incompatible with our construction of that phrase. We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa and Hullfish. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 38 and 46. See Pet. 64 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 38 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7), 65–67 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 46 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 7, 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 38–41, 46, 49, 51–53, 55, 57, 58, or 64– 66 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa and Hullfish; that any of claims 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, or 54 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa, Hullfish, and Loveland; that any of claims 37, 42, 56, 59–63, or 67 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa, Hullfish, and Takahashi; or that claim 45 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa, Hullfish, Loveland, and Takahashi.” slip op. at 36

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 60–85. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). Our evaluation also necessarily remains cognizant that “[i]n 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. 3 Petitioner filed a second Declaration by Dr. Almeroth after institution (such that it was not available on the preliminary record), but that Declaration is provided primarily as supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to address objections by Patent Owner to the authenticity of various other exhibits. Ex. 1039 ¶ 2. Dr. Almeroth’s second Declaration otherwise merely incorporates Dr. Almeroth’s “technical opinions” by reference to his first Declaration, without providing any further facts or expressing any further opinions that bear on the merits, including claim construction. Id. ¶ 1. § 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. National 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). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,038 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,038
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00294 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33–67 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not establish that Diacakis disclosed the construed server-side network-based portal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “entitled to no weight because it “repeats the [Patent Owner Response] nearly verbatim,” “appears to contain opinions he did not develop,” and “is contradicted by Dr. Rouskas’s own deposition testimony.” Reply 3–4. Although Petitioner makes multiple allegations of deficiencies in Dr. Rouskas’s direct testimony, none of these allegations is sufficiently developed with specific examples. First, we disagree that mere verbatim duplication between an expert declaration and an attorney brief defines “a classic example of a cursory expert declaration the Board disregards.” See id. at 3. The Board’s concern is rather whether expert testimony “cite[s] to any additional supporting evidence or provide[s] any technical reasoning to support [its] statement[s].” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential); see also id. at 16 (“Dr. Jones offers only a verbatim restatement of the assertion being supported, without any supporting evidence or technical reasoning” (emphasis added)). As Patent Owner asserts, “Petitioner fail[s] to provide a single example of how Dr. Rouskas’s testimony is ‘cursory or unsupported.’” Sur-reply 1.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “5. Summary As we note above, we find certain of Patent Owner’s arguments adequately rebutted by Petitioner, such that we do not consider them in our assessment. Nevertheless, Patent Owner retains compelling arguments for its proposed construction, supported by expert testimonial evidence, including dictionary definitions and the ’038 patent specification’s reference to a “portal or a gateway.” We find such references more compellingly refer to “portal” and “gateway” as synonyms rather than alternatives. In addition, Patent Owner provides convincing evidence and argument that rebuts the concern raised by the Board at institution whether Patent Owner’s proposed construction would exclude preferred embodiments. Petitioner, who bears the overall burden, addresses that concern only with attorney argument, which we accord less weight. In light of these considerations, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 7 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 21:53, 21:58, 22:2, 22:14–15, 22:19, 22:20–21, 22:27, 22:33, 22:38–39; see PO Resp. 21 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 7). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects clients to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 34–35. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 38 and 46. See Pet. 55–56 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 38 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7), 57–58 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 46 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 7, 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 38–41, 46, 49, 51–53, 55, 57, 58, or 64–66 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis; that any of claims 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, or 54 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Loveland; that any of claims 37, 42, 56, 59–63, or 67 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Takahashi; or that claim 45 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis, Loveland, and Takahashi.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,038 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,038
• Streck, Inc. / Streck LLC v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01577 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 55–61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89–92, 94, 126–130, 132, and 133 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “III. MOTIONS Motion to Strike (Paper 50) Petitioner filed a motion to strike portions of Patent Owner’s Sur- Reply. Paper 50. Patent Owner opposes the motion. Paper 53. Petitioner contends Patent Owner raised new argument about Exhibit 1014 (a paper authored by Dr. Patterson), which was submitted with the filing of the Petition but only cited by Patent Owner for the first time in its Sur-Reply. Paper 50, 1–3; PO Sur-Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1014). According to Petitioner, Patent Owner presents new argument about the reversibility of certain crosslinks caused by formaldehyde, cites new experimental data (in Ex. 1014, Fig. 2.1), and argues such matters would have been known before any possible priority date of the ’277 patent. Paper 50, 1–3. Moreover, Petitioner argues, the untimeliness of Patent Owner’s arguments about Exhibit 1014 prevented the exhibit’s author, Dr. Patterson, from addressing them to provide explanation or context. Id. at 2–3. For the reasons given below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to strike. First, we find that Patent Owner’s arguments on Exhibit 1014 are, on balance, responsive to issues raised by Petitioner in its Reply. It is true that Petitioner submitted Exhibit 1014 with its Petition and that Patent Owner did not cite it until its Sur-Reply. However, the points raised by Patent Owner about Exhibit 1014 respond to certain of Petitioner’s arguments raised for the first time in its Reply. For example, Petitioner argued a POSA would not have been concerned about formaldehyde’s use (such as cross-linking disclosed in Heinmoller that Patent Owner cited in its Response) and that those concerns arose only after the supposed priority date of the ’277 patent. 88 Pet. Reply 8–9. Patent Owner’s citation of Exhibit 1014 is responsive on such points (e.g., it discusses cross-linking with formaldehyde’s use), it published in 2000 and is thus earlier than some references Petitioner argued were too late to evidence a POSA’s knowledge, and, lastly, it was authored by Dr. Patterson and arguably called into question the credibility of rebuttal opinions he offered about the state of a POSA’s knowledge on such issues. Second, Exhibit 1014 does not, ultimately, help Patent Owner as we do not rely on the portions of Exhibit 1014 cited by Patent Owner or Patent Owner’s argument about them. As discussed in our analysis, if cross-linking (as reported in Heinmoller or, for that matter, Exhibit 1014) was a perceived problem, Dr. Patterson provides a credible explanation how it could be and likely was addressed by Pertl.54 Supra Section II(G)(3) (citing Ex. 1047).” slip op. at 88

  • ExcludeDenied

    “by the non-designating party. See generally Paper 60. We nevertheless reviewed the designated testimony. The objections are overruled, but were also considered during review.” slip op. at 90

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

    “evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on grounds advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 93

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

    “3. Conclusion For the reasons above, we find Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Chiu/Lee discloses “an agent that inhibits cell lysis, if cells are present” as recited in independent claims 55 and 81, and the claims depending therefrom. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that claims 55–59, 61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89, 94, and 126–130 would have been obvious over Chiu and Lee.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,277 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,277
• Illumina, Inc. v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2023 · IPR2021-01271 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 21, 22, and 24–30 were not shown unpatentable because Illumina did not prove that glucose in the cited ACD samples necessarily impeded cell lysis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not expressly contest this definition during trial, noting only that “Dr. Van Ness meets [this] definition” and “confirms [that] his opinions are the same under either party’s definition.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 20–25). To the extent there are minor differences in the above 14 definition and the alternative definition offered by Dr. Van Ness (Ex. 2239 ¶ 23), Dr. Van Ness’s proposal is too broad for at least the reason that it does not require the POSA have experience collecting and analyzing cell-free DNA from blood samples—subject matter relevant to the claims and applied art. Accordingly, we continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition here.13 In any event, the parties’ technical declarants meet or exceed either definition and there is no indication that their opinions would change depending on which definition was applied, and no argument from the parties to the contrary. Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 5–10 (overview of qualifications and experience); Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 4–7 (same).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “presents is whether a claimed agent that inhibits cell lysis may be a chelator used as an anticoagulant. The Specification and prosecution history make clear that at least one anticoagulant chelator—EDTA—is excluded from satisfying the claimed agent as recited in claim 1. As discussed above, the Specification describes an example where a sample processed in a tube with only EDTA is described as processing a sample in the “absence” of an agent that inhibits cell lysis. Ex. 1001, 89:35–57 (describing, in contrast, the EDTA + formalin sample as showing an example in the “presence of inhibitors of cell lysis”). If EDTA alone could be read as meeting the “agent” limitation, that example would make no sense. Petitioner provides no persuasive argument otherwise. The prosecution history buttresses the exclusion of the anticoagulant chelator EDTA from being the claimed “agent.” For example, during prosecution of the related ’277 patent, the Examiner at one point expressly 20 identified the EDTA in the tubes of a prior art reference as satisfying the agent term, prompting applicant’s argument that the Office was “incorrect” in doing so, and further distinguishing EDTA as merely “a well-known chelator of calcium and magnesium” that is added to blood “as an anticoagulant due to its ability to chelate calcium.” Ex. 2064, 1196 (arguing “EDTA is clearly referred to as a chelator in Applicant’s specification, not as a cell lysis inhibitor”); supra Section I(E); Ex. 1001, 32:61–64 (listing EDTA and EGTA as chelators). This, in turn, convinced the Examiner to withdraw the finding that EDTA was an “agent” as claimed and move on to art that disclosed formaldehyde as meeting that claim term. Ex. 2064, 1024 (Examiner interview summary noting that “applicant pointed out [that] EDTA could not be defined as a cell lysis inhibitor but rather was simply an anticoagulant”). This colloquy during prosecution evidences a clear and unmistakable disavowal of EDTA as being the claimed “agent.” Having determined that Patent Owner disavowed EDTA as the claimed “agent,” we next consider whether the disavowal extends more broadly to other anticoagulant chelators and, specifically, to ACD. On this record, we find that it does as explained below. In distinguishing EDTA from being the “agent,” Patent Owner relied not on properties that are unique to EDTA, but on the fact that it was a “well-known chelator” used as an anticoagulant in this technical field. Ex. 2064, 1196. Given Patent Owner’s clear intent to exclude EDTA from the scope of the claimed “agent” on the basis that it was simply an anticoagulant chelator, we find that a POSA would also have understood other anticoagulant chelators as subject to Patent Owner’s disavowal.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “20 Before institution, Patent Owner contested the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on whether Landes was entitled to the priority benefit of the filing date of the Landes provisional application. We disagreed that Petitioner’s showing was insufficient. Inst. Dec. 43–47. Patent Owner did not raise any issue during trial about Landes’s prior art status and, thus, has forfeited any argument that Landes is not prior art. On this record, we determine that Landes is § 102(a) prior art based on its July 31, 2003, publication date. On this record, we do not presume the claims of the ’720 patent are entitled to any earlier priority date of other applications listed in its ancestral chain. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that “there is simply no reason to presume that claims in a [CIP] application are entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application”). That is especially true with the patent’s complex priority chain, involving several CIPs leading back to a provisional application filed 26” slip op. at 26

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Altogether, considering the argument and evidence of record, Petitioner has shown, at best, that it is possible for glucose to help impede cell lysis by reason of isotonicity and providing a nutrient source. But such possibilities are not enough for Petitioner to prevail on its challenge to the claims as anticipated by Landes. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or 41 possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech, 936 F.3d at 1364 (same). Petitioner has not, on this record, met its burden to show that the glucose component of ACD in Landes’s specific method is an “agent that impedes cell lysis” in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,727,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,727,720

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.