- Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00153 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Tesla submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or an equivalent field) and at least two years of work experience involving automotive systems, including electric vehicle power management. . . . Additional industry 1 US 2009/0313034 A1, pub. Dec. 17, 2009 (Ex. 1004, “Ferro”). 2 EP 1,920,968 A1, pub. May 14, 2008 (Ex. 1005, “Oyobe”). 3 US 7,124,691 B2, iss. Oct. 24, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Donnelly”). 4 Steven E. Letendre, The V2G Concept: A New Model for Power? PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, Feb. 15, 2002, at 16 (Ex. 1007, “Letendre”). 5 US 5,654,621, iss. Aug. 5, 1997 (Ex. 1078, “Seelig”). 6 US 6,662,083 B1, iss. Sep. 16, 2003 (Ex. 1010, “Knockeart”). experience or technical training may offset less formal education, while advanced degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser levels of industry experience. Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–15). Charge Fusion “takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. For purposes of our analysis, we apply Tesla’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which we find to be consistent with the problems addressed in the ’987 patent and the prior art. B. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider” In the Petition, Tesla proposes that we construe “dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider,” as recited in every independent claim, to mean “a changing or otherwise fluctuating cost (or price) of electricity for purchase from an electric charge provider.” Pet. 4–5. Charge Fusion responds that Tesla improperly narrows the meaning of this claim limitation. PO Resp. 15 (arguing this claim term “is not just limited to ‘changing or otherwise fluctuating cost (or price)’ as alleged by the Petition” (emphasis added)). Although we consider Tesla’s proposed construction to identify an exemplary “dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider,” we see no need to limit the meaning of this limitation as proposed by Tesla. Indeed, Tesla agrees. See Pet. Reply. 7 (arguing only that this claim limitation “at least includes” such an example). And Charge Fusion does not contend otherwise. See PO Resp 15 (arguing only that this limitation “is not just limited to” cost fluctuations). As such, we see no need to further construe this claim limitation. 2. “determine . . . a charging schedule for the vehicle” Limitation 1[g] recites “determine, based at least on the one or more charging preferences and at least one current value of a dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider, a charging schedule for the vehicle.” Independent claim 8, 15, and 22 recite a materially identical limitation. Tesla submits that this limitation should not be construed as a means-plus- function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). See Pet. 5. Charge Fusion agrees that “nothing in the claim invokes [§] 112(6).” PO Resp. 16. As such, we discern no dispute regarding the meaning of this claim limitation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Initially, we note that, as claimed, there is no express restriction on the manner in which the “amount” or “charge” is specified or otherwise expressed. Indeed, the Specification uses both “desired charge percent level” and “desired charge range level” as alternative ways for a user to specify an “amount of charge.” Ex. 1001, 14:53–15:8 (emphases added). The Specification defines “desired charge range level” as meaning “a desired distance to travel.” Id. at 15:3–8. Elsewhere, the Specification describes that a user may specify the amount of charge as follows: “the user may indicate a desired charging level (and/or a desired charging level may be automatically calculated) based on a desired distance of travel.” Id. at 19:49–57 (emphasis added). More specifically, annotated Figure 7 of the ’987 patent, reproduced below, demonstrates how a user may select “amount of charge” in terms of a desired mileage range 720 or a percentage level 718. See Pet. Reply 2. As shown in red, annotated Figure 7 illustrates that a user selects “desired charge level 720” on “vehicle charge indicator 714” by moving a slider to a value specified in “miles” (e.g., 110 miles). The Specification, after discussing selecting a desired charge percent level 718, explains: The user may also or alternatively view and/or change the desired charge range level 720. An estimate of how far the vehicle can travel on a given charge amount (which may be a general average and/or may be computed based on a specific itinerary and/or past driving habits) can be determined, for example, and utilized to express the desired charge level in terms of distance capable of being traveled. In such a manner, for example, a user may determine a desired distance to travel (e.g., how far it is from home to work or vice versa) and may set the desired charge range level 720 to match the desired distance. Ex. 1001, 14:65–15:8. Thus, the Specification confirms that “amount of charge” may be expressed in terms of a desired mileage as well as a desired percentage level.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. Charge Fusion’s reliance on Wonderland is misplaced and does not support the proposition for which it is cited. In Wonderland, the district court denied the accused infringer’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, in part, because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether there was sufficient motivation to combine the prior art. Wonderland, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 511. As such, the district court’s Wonderland decision does not constitute a final ruling on the motivation to combine issue, and the Federal Circuit’s summary affirmance of the district court’s ruling neither addresses the issue nor reflects how the issue was resolved at trial. See Wonderland NurseryGoods Co. v. Thorley Indus., LLC, 644 F. App’x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, contrary to Charge Fusion’s assertion, Tesla correctly notes that although Ferro refers to wireless charging, it provides no implementation details. Ex. 1004 ¶ 36; Ex. 2006, 54:8–55:9. Nonetheless, Ferro does describe manual options for initiating charging, and Tesla’s expert credibly testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Oyobe’s vehicle sensor to allow a user to initiate Ferro’s charging methods more easily without having to leave the vehicle. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 146, 151, 152 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 109). Accordingly, we find that Tesla establishes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Oyobe’s use of a sensor to establish presence of a vehicle near a charging station into Ferro’s system.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,631,987 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,631,987 - Nxtgen Toys, LLC v. Zipstring, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 20, 2026 · IPR2024-01213 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 are unpatentable; substitute claim 27 is allowed, while substitute claims 21–26 and 28 are denied as obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “was typically a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, physics, or other science or 6 Patent Owner does not rely on any objective indicia of nonobviousness in this proceeding. engineering based degree that [was] familiar with general principles of mechanics and aerodynamics with at least two years of experience in product design and development in the field of toys or other amusement type devices.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–6, 22–26). Patent Owner states that it submitted the following proposal for a POSITA in the related district court litigation: “[a POSITA] would have had at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years industry experience in one of these fields, and such POSITA would have been familiar with general principles of mechanics, fluid mechanics and aerodynamics.” PO Resp. 4–5. We note that the parties’ proposals overlap considerably, and neither party argues the inadequacy of the other party’s proposal or that any patentability issue in this case turns on the resolution of this issue. We find Petitioner’s definition consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’774 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We would arrive at the same findings and conclusions in this Decision if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that no “term requires construction to resolve the invalidity grounds presented in this Petition since the prior art renders claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation of the claims.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner argues that it “does not believe express claim constructions are necessary during this proceeding because the claims can readily be given their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the patent at the time it was filed.” PO Resp. 5. Based on the parties’ positions and our view of the record, we need not expressly construe any claim limitations to resolve the issues in this Decision. To the extent that any implicit claim construction issues relate to the issues raised by the parties, we address them in the context of the parties’ patentability arguments below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“string, and that adding Scorch’s slot removes this arguably inconvenient process by allowing insertion and removal of a string without removing and reinstalling any aspects of the housing. See Pet 85–86 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–175; Ex. 1007, 3:30–3:53, 6:03; Ex. 1008, 3:46–4:45); Pet. Reply 18–20 (citing in part Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (Dr. Janét’s testimony that Wagner’s removal and reinstallation of a cover “may be viewed as an inconvenient process”)). Making insertion and removal of the string easier and quicker provides a notable advantage over Wagner’s existing device. See id. Scorch itself supports this argument and the related expert testimony because it discusses insertion and removal of strings and stated that the slot allows a user to “swap them out really quick.” Ex. 1007, 3:30–53. Petitioner also persuasively argues that a POSITA would know how to add the slot while maintaining the proper operation of the device, such as allowing insertion and removal of the string and avoiding inadvertent exiting of the string from the device. See Pet. 86–87 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 175–176; Ex. 1007, 4:00–30, Ex. 1008, 2:49–52); Pet. Reply 19, 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). We find Petitioner’s arguments and reasoning in support of adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing straightforward and persuasive. Patent Owner’s arguments against the combination do not directly refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). At best, Patent Owner’s arguments on this issue establish potential drawbacks in Petitioner’s proposed combination, but drawbacks alone do not defeat Petitioner’s obviousness rationale that includes readily apparent benefits. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine “). In addition, even if Patent Owner were correct that Wagner’s existing design works as well as Petitioner’s proposed combination, given all of the tradeoffs involved, that would not fatally undermine Petitioner’s showing. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (obviousness does not require that the proposed combination “is the preferred, or most desirable, combination”). On this record, Petitioner’s (and Scorch’s) stated advantages that are achieved when adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing adequately support Petitioner’s motivation to combine rationale.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 11,674,774 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,674,774 - Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01133 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 9, and 12–13 as anticipated by Weaver, and claims 6–8 and 10–11 as obvious over the stated combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). In general, we agree with the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. In particular, Patent Owner proposes “at least a Bachelors’ degree in a field of engineering or physics,” which includes “electrical engineering or a comparable field of study” as Petitioner proposes. Pet. 4 (emphasis added); PO Resp. 10. We agree with Petitioner that by defining the engineering field as “electrical” or “comparable,” we can exclude engineering fields “having nothing to do with displays, such as biomedical, civil, chemical or environmental engineering.” Pet. Reply 1. Petitioner also proposes approximately “one or more years of professional experience” which includes Patent Owner’s “at least two years of professional experience.” Pet. 4; PO Resp. 10. Furthermore, both parties agree that “[a]dditional graduate education could [reduce . . . the time requirement] for professional experience.” Id. Thus, we adopt both parties’ proposed POSITA of having a Bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience, wherein additional graduate education could reduce the time requirement for professional experience. Id. Such proposal comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“The plain language in claim 1 of “auxiliary electrode” does not preclude that the “electrode” may be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Ex. 1001, 8:47–52. Nothing in the Specification clearly precludes “auxiliary electrode” from being a “bus line” or “power line,” as Patent Owner proposes. PO Resp. 25–27. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification discloses that “the power line ‘PL’ is shown in Figure 1, but the power line PL is not an electrode that is shown in Figure 2.” Id. at 26–27. Here, Patent Owner points to no portions in the Specification that provide the requisite “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” to warrant interpreting the claim language at issue as supporting Patent Owner’s contention that an auxiliary electrode cannot be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Id.; In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That is, although Patent Owner points to Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification for support of its contention, Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification merely show various examples of power line and an auxiliary electrode. PO Resp. 26–27. Thus, although the referenced portions of the Specification discuss various examples wherein an auxiliary electrode may be implemented, nothing in these referenced portions of the Specification clearly precludes the “auxiliary electrode” from being a power line or any electrode that is “the road to get to an end point,” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Patent Owner points to no special definition, implicit or explicit, for “auxiliary electrode” that is set forth in the Specification which supports Patent Owner’s construction with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “‘bus line 430’ is not an ‘auxiliary electrode’” (PO Resp. 28–33), because Patent Owner is relying on a claim construction of “auxiliary electrode” as precluding “essential” elements and requiring “more than the end structure of a conductor” (id.), that is not adopted by our construction discussed above. Here, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Weaver’s bus line 430 for providing the claimed “electrode,” that is “supplemental to other electrodes in the structure.” Pet. 18; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 26, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 92. We find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have understood that “anode 406 and bus line 430 are connected in parallel,” which means that “bus line 430 is a supplemental electrode that reduces the total resistance of the pixel structure.” Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94. Thus, we find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that Weaver’s bus line 430 is an electrode supplemental to other electrodes in the structure that is electrically insulated from transistor 410 by passivation layer 409, wherein OLED 400, which includes cathode 422, organic layer 424, and anode 406, is disposed above bus line 430, and wherein anode 406 of OLED 400 is electrically connected to bus line 430 by via 428. Pet. 16–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–94. That is, we find availing Petitioner’s contention that, like the ’509 patent’s auxiliary electrode 120, bus line 430 is electrically insulated from transistor 410, wherein OLED 400 is disposed above bus line 430 and anode 406 electrically connected with bus line 430. Compare Pet. 2–3 (annotated” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that the proposed modifications to Weaver would involve changing the process. PO Resp. 33– 34. We agree with Petitioner, whose contentions are supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that “to provide additional components from the same layer is a layout change that a POSITA would have been able to perform without changing the process.” Pet. Reply 17–18 (citing Ex 1003 ¶ 157; Ex. 1020 ¶ 45). Further, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that POSITA would not have combined Weaver with Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae without the use of hindsight (PO Resp. 33–45), as Petitioner points out, Lee ’149, for example, “explicitly teaches that ‘the electrode pattern 45 serves to lower the resistance of the first electrode 41.” Pet. Reply 58 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 38). Similarly, Bae “explicitly teaches that the “auxiliary electrodes 139 contact the first electrode 132 to commonly apply a voltage to the sub-pixels” and “reduces the resistance of the first electrode.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59). As such, Petitioner’s proposed combinations are supported by at least by Lee ’149’s and Bae’s teachings of applying a second electrode to lower the resistance and voltage drop between anode 406 and the VDD line of Weaver. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 ¶ 38; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59. We are persuaded by Dr. Baker’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood that higher resistance between the power or ground line to the light emitting device would consume more power and require higher operating voltages, and thus, would have been motivated to implement the solutions of Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae to lower the resistance between anode 406 and voltage source VDD in Weaver. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. We agree with Petitioner, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success the combining the references as suggested, wherein such modification “involves modifications of only routine skill in the art,” which “involve known method,” and “would have yielded predictable results. Pet. 42, 48–49, 59, 67–68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. That is, we determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the complete record presented, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6–8 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’053 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Song, and that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’149 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Bae.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 9,263,509 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,263,509 - Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01130 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; claims 7–9 were not shown unpatentable because their scope could not be ascertained.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“After the hearing, with our authorization,1 Patent Owner moved to dismiss this proceeding because, according to Patent Owner, the Petition did not identify all real parties-in-interest as required be 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). 1 IPR2024-01131, Paper 43, 45:1–8. Paper 42. Petitioner opposed the motion. Paper 44. We denied the motion. Paper 46.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“arguments and evidence in support of its proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, we determine that Petitioner’s definition is too broad. Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “approximately one or more years of professional experience with electronic and optoelectronic system design.” Pet. 3. But Petitioner does not appear to dispute the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Bretschneider, that “the field of optoelectronics” is “broad and expansive and encompasses solar cells, optical fiber, and any application of LEDs, not just the design of LED packages.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 78. Therefore, one having experience with optoelectronic system design would not necessarily have experience designing LED backlights for LCD displays. We have also carefully considered Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence in support of its proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In light of our analysis of the prior art and the AAPA, we determine that Patent Owner’s requirement of “at least one year of practical experience in design of LED packages and one year of practical experience in design of thermal management systems for LEDs” is not sufficiently precise. Patent Owner does not specify that the required experience is in the context of designing LED backlights for LCD displays. One having this experience would necessarily have experience addressing thermal-management concerns associated with such backlights.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Because Dr. Baker does not have the requisite experience designing LED backlights for LCD displays, he is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing LED backlights for LCD displays. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Neither party asserts that “connecting” is a term of art requiring expert testimony to construe. We agree with Petitioner that “connecting” should be construed consistently with the “fastener” term, because it is the “fastener” (or the second portion thereof) to which the circuit board is “connecting.” Because the parties agree that “fastener” is “[a] feature that attaches or holds something in place, “connecting” means “attaching or holding.”” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,168,842 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,168,842 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currecy Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00839 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3, 4, and 7–11 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish random mirror selection.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA because Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology. For example, the ʼ863 patent provides, as relevant background, a discussion of anti-counterfeiting devices made up of arrays of lenses used to display unique images, placed on currency and labels for retail products. Ex. 1001, 1:31–43. The ʼ863 patent also discusses using lenses to create holograms. Id. at 2:7–20. Similarly, the prior art in this field, such as Fuhse847, relates to the use of lenses and mirrors to create hologram images for security purposes. Ex. 1022, 1–8. These descriptions demonstrate, consistent with Petitioner’s proposed definition, that a POSITA would need an educational background to understand optics, lenses, and mirrors along with professional experience with optical security features to understand the creation holograms and images using lenses and mirrors for the purpose of preventing counterfeiting of currency and other valuable products. Patent Owner’s proposed definition differs from Petitioner’s in that it includes “or a similar field” when describing the education level of a POSITA and it includes “with diffusive light” when describing the experience level of a POSITA. As to the first difference, the addition of “similar field” introduces vagueness and unnecessary uncertainty into the definition. Patent Owner does not explain what aspects of computer science would make it a field similar to the others listed, or what additional engineering coursework would suffice to make a person a POSITA. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 25. Nor does Patent Owner explain, generally, what makes a field “similar” to the ones listed or how to make that determination. As to the second difference, the addition of “with diffusive light”” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner did not move to exclude Dr. Hesselink’s testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.62; Pet. Reply 25 (arguing that Patent Owner waived its ability to challenge Dr. Hesselink’s qualification.). At the hearing, Patent Owner explained that its argument that Dr. Hesselink is not a POSITA “goes to [the] weight” of Dr. Hesselink’s testimony. Tr. 37:8. In any event, Patent Owner’s argument is based on its proposed definition of a POSITA, which we do not adopt. We, therefore, are not persuaded that Dr. Hesselink testimony should be given little or no weight.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner agrees “that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” PO Resp. 13. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. 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)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“teaches the preamble and all of the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 12–34. Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to automate the computations for designing micro mirror arrays in Fuhse847 with Rich’s teaching of a processor running software. Id. at 14–17. Patent Owner does not specifically dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding the preamble, limitations 1b–1e, and the motivation to combine Fuhse847 and Rich. See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence and are persuaded that the combination of Fuhse847 and Rich teaches the preamble and undisputed limitations 1b–1e, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fuhse847 and Rich in the manner set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,448,863 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,448,863 - Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alpinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–22 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its three obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined EP’536 (with or without Hatton) and CN’180 in the proposed manner, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1 and 18. 5. Claims 2–17 and 19–22 Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonably likelihood of prevailing with respect to independent claims 1 and 18, Petitioner also has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the claims that depend therefrom (claims 2–17 and 19–22).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not offer its own definition of the level of ordinary skill or dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s unchallenged description of an ordinarily skilled artisan appears consistent with the subject matter discussed in the references and that of the challenged claims, for purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“For purposes of our analysis, we need only address the meaning of “planar structure,” and only to note that this limitation requires that all portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00698 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–11, 18–20, 23–25, and 28 on all petitioned grounds, based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Doolittle, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’539 patent “would have had an undergraduate degree (i.e., B.S., B.S.E. or the equivalent) in electrical engineering, materials science, physics, or a similar discipline” and “would also have one to two years of experience in the field of LED packaging design.” Pet. 6. Petitioner additionally contends that “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Id. Petitioner further contends that “[t]his person would have been capable of understanding and applying the teachings of the ’539 patent and the prior-art references discussed herein,” and “[m]oreover, the prior art reflects the level of skill at the time of the claimed invention.” Id. (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 38–42). Patent Owner states that “solely for the purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner and its technical expert employ the same level of skill in the art as Petitioners.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’539 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness analysisbelow. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “no construction should be necessary to institute this petition.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner “requests that the Board adopt the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Having considered the record, we determine that, at this stage, no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We note, however, there may be some claim terms below whose constructions that the parties may wish to address during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“and “how” the references would have been combined. As the Petition explains, Krummacher discloses radiation scattering particles having a size range of 50 to 1000 nm. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1107 ¶ 39). Petitioner further explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would use Stokes teachings to further refine that size range to optimize the particle size to preferentially scatter blue light. See id. at 26–27. Petitioner further provides reasons, suggested in Stokes itself, why a person of ordinary skill would have made this modification to Krummacher. See id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1108, 7:17–26; Ex. 1102 ¶ 128). Petitioner provides sufficient evidence that such a particle size selection was within the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 122–128, 140–144; Ex. 1108, 7:1– 17; Ex. 1124 ¶¶ 80–81. We note that we have reviewed the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Schubert, but this testimony does not, at this stage, diminish the weight we give to Petitioner’s expert. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Krummacher and Stokes accounts for this limitation and that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the references in the manner suggested with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’539 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,614,539 - Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00300 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–38 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish Krupa as prior art and failed to show the claimed fluid-triggered valve sequence in Carr or Tolman.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Although we agree with Petitioner that the plain meaning of limitation 1.2 does not require the recited determination to occur at the first well, it does require the determination to be about the condition(s) of the fluid communicated to the first well by the manifold, regardless of where or how the information is gathered to make that determination. Limitation 1.2 recites plainly that the “determining” step is specifically about whether “the fluid communicated via the manifold has satisfied one or more conditions.” Ex. 1001, 22:38–39 (emphasis added). Considering the antecedents for “the fluid” and “the manifold”––i.e., “communicating fluid to a first well via a manifold” (id. at 22:35, limitation 1.1)––limitation 1.2 expressly identifies the fluid which “the manifold” has “communicated” to the first well to be exactly the fluid used for “determining” whether “one or more conditions” are “satisfied” to trigger the recited responses. Id. This is because “the fluid” refers to a fluid passing to a first well by way of a manifold and the past tense of “communicated via the manifold” indicates, more specifically, that it is the fluid passed by the manifold which must satisfy a condition(s). The Specification of ’770 patent illustrates this by checking the “frac rate” of the fluid discharged by a manifold to a first well to make the determination about whether to permit a regular swap or a continuous pumping swap (“CP swap”). Ex. 1001, 13:30–54, Fig. 12. Therefore, contrary to Petitioner’s representation that limitation 1.2 does not “requir[e] the fluid used for ‘determining’ to have been communicated to the first well” (Pet. Reply 3), the plain meaning of limitation 1.2 does require the fluid used” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, Krupa necessarily requires Krupa to be first qualified as prior art. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (party’s burden to prove anticipation of a patent includes initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art). Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)— the subsection under which Petitioner contends Krupa qualifies as prior art—when the reference patent document’s actual filing date is before the challenged patent’s filing date, a petitioner need only refer to the filing dates appearing on the challenged patent and reference patent document to make prima facie showing that the reference is prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(1) (“For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent.”).” slip op. at 16
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We determine that the Petition did not adequately present Petitioner’s contention that Tolman discloses or suggests a “master valve” that a skilled artisan would understand to be the claimed “first valve,” which is first introduced in the Reply. The issue is whether Petitioner’s identification of Tolman’s “tree valve” for the claimed first valve was particular enough to allow Petitioner to rely specifically on the “master valve” in the well tree to show Tolman discloses the first valve. We find that it is not. It is undisputed that a well tree include several different valves: (1) valves for communicating fluid to a well (e.g., for treatment or stimulation); (2) valves for communicating fluid from a well (e.g., for flowback); and (3) valves for communicating fluid both to and from a well (e.g., master valve). See Reply 19–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 542–545; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 33–34, 38–42; Tr. 33:12–18, 34:3–12, 36:8–37:18, 39:4–17; Ex. 2013, 85:4–86:19, 87:1–12, 89:2–11. And the opening/closing of these different valves are controlled independently of the other valves based on different parameters. Id. identifying a tree valve, generally, does not provide the particularity necessary to provide notice that the master valve is the particular valve being relied upon. Further compounding this problem is the fact that the Petition repeatedly refers to a plurality of valves, rather than a singular “master valve.” The variability of possible valves suggested by simply referring to a tree valve fails to provide a level of particularity that clearly identifies which specific structure is being relied upon to perform which part of the recited procedure. Ultimately, we agree with Patent Owner that because the Petition does not specifically identify the master valve in the Petition, which the Petitioner’s Reply suggest was the intention all along, Patent Owner was put at a disadvantage because its ability to fully develop a response was impeded. Therefore, Petitioner’s reliance particularly on the “master valve” of the well tree, and the newly introduced evidence associated therewith, was improper and may not be considered. Nevertheless, as discussed below, even if Petitioner were allowed to rely on the master valve, we still find the Tolman Grounds to be deficient.” slip op. at 56
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, Carr does not disclose or suggest: relying on the condition(s) of the fluid communicated by first isolated manifold path 122 to first well 140 to be the determinative factor for causing first and second valves 470 and 472 to perform a sequenced response that includes–– (1) opening second valve 472, (2) communicating fluid to second well 142 through second valve 472, and (3) after opening second valve 472, closing first valve 150 from communicating fluid to first well 140. At the time of the invention, when a first well is being operated individually using high pressure pumping, we find that skilled artisans would have considered concurrent operation of the second well’s valves to be hazardous and activities that can not occur. See Ex. 1031, 4 (“specifically identified activities that were restricted from occurring at the same time (i.e., CAN NOT OCCUR activities). As an example, if the operations on a well involved high pressure pumping . . . then manipulating manifold well valves and wellhead trees valves on another well were not allowed to be performed concurrently”); Ex. 2012 ¶ 148. would have had a reasonable expectation of being able to successfully avoid the unacceptable hazards known to be associated with opening second valve 472 and communicating fluid to second well 142, while individually operating on first well 140 using high pressure pumping.10 Furthermore, Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that a skilled artisan would have known that those unacceptable hazards could be avoided (or acceptably minimized) by using a condition(s) of the fluid communicated by first isolated manifold path 122 to first well 140 as a trigger for opening second valve 472 and communicating fluid to second well 142, while first well 140 is being individually operated.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 11,560,770 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,560,770 - Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Nariste Networks Pty. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 9, 2025 · IPR2023-01374 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 37–45 are unpatentable as obvious over Watters; the Board also found claims 37, 40, and 43 obvious over Nohara and did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“First, Watters teaches that the relevant distance moved is relative to “the last GPS update,” with the “last GPS update” referring to the “first fix” acquired in step 1200. See Ex. 1005, 22:57–60; id. at 2:39–49 (“first fix” means initial position determined by GPS). Watters thus teaches that the starting point for the step 1230 inquiry regarding distance moved is based on information acquired in step 1200. Although Watters does not go on to expressly teach determining how far the device has moved away from the step 1200 GPS fix by comparing that GPS fix with the cellular-network-based position acquired in step 1220, it strongly suggests doing so by teaching acquiring the cellular-network position in the very same process that requires both determining how far the device has moved and the starting point (the GPS fix) for that determination. See In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (a “reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.”). In other words, by teaching acquiring information that can be used to determine distance moved, and then teaching determining distance moved, Watters strongly suggests using the already-acquired information to perform the distance-moved calculation.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“teaching acquiring the cellular-network position in the very same process that requires both determining how far the device has moved and the starting point (the GPS fix) for that determination. See In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (a “reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.”). In other words, by teaching acquiring information that can be used to determine distance moved, and then teaching determining distance moved, Watters strongly suggests using the already-acquired information to perform the distance-moved calculation.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pet. 8 (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Petitioner asserts that the recited function is “determining when said embedded GPS module should be powered on, said embedded GPS module then being powered on dependent on at least one of a current radio position and a position error of said mobile device determined from the wireless communications network, said wireless communications network being different from said GPS.” Id. at 10–11. Petitioner further asserts that the structure disclosed in the ’206 patent corresponding to this function is a “CPU or other processing unit programmed with a thresholding algorithm to determine when to power on said embedded GPS module based on comparing at least one of a position and position error to one or more thresholds, and equivalents.” Id. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioners’ identified recited function and corresponding structure for this term.” PO Resp. 15. We adopt the parties’ agreed-upon construction for the above term.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Superguide did not, however, establish a per se rule that a limitation containing the phrase “at least one of” followed by “and” should be read conjunctively.9 For example, courts and the Board “have found SuperGuide 8 Although Petitioner asserts that we need not resolve this question, we note that Petitioner’s proposed ground of unpatentability based on Nohara is premised only on the disjunctive interpretation. See Pet. 46 (“Nohara teaches the claims under the ‘disjunctive’ interpretation.”). 9 See L.A. Biomed. Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the plain meaning of “an inapplicable when the listed items following ‘at least one of’ are not categories containing many possible values.” Apple, Inc. v. Evolved Wireless LLC, 2017 WL 6543970, at *4 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2017) (listing district court and Board decisions). We agree with this understanding of SuperGuide; for example, it would not make sense to say “at least one of ‘A’” if there was only one possible ‘A.’ Here, of course, there can be only one possible value for “current radio position.” The mobile device cannot be in two places at the same time. Further, we find nothing in the Specification of the ’206 patent to support the possibility of multiple values for “position error” associated with a single current radio position. Therefore, we interpret the claim term disjunctively; e.g., determining when the embedded GPS module should be turned on is dependent on current radio position or position error (or both).” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS RE48,206 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,770,121
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.