• Qiagen Sciences, LLC v. Tecan Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00029 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 14–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed combinations; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “for purposes of this Decision, we find a POSA would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, molecular genetics, bioinformatics, biochemistry, or a related field. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. Additionally, the POSA would have had experience with NGS sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned.” slip op. at 7

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

    “claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any claim term expressly.” slip op. at 8

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,876,108 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,876,108
• Qiagen Sciences, LLC v. Tecan Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-00026 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 5–10 are anticipated by Porreca and obvious over Schmitt and McCloskey; claims 4 and 7 are also obvious over the listed Illumina combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “On the initial trial record, we agreed with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience with next generation sequencing, but were not persuaded that this would only be possible in the field of molecular biology. Instead, we found that a person of ordinary skill would have had either (1) a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, molecular biology, or biochemistry or (2) a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. Inst. Dec. 8. We specifically found that “[t]he person of ordinary skill would have had experience with next generation sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned.” Id. at 8–9. Patent Owner now submits that it does not dispute the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as laid out in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 13. Reviewing the entire trial record, we maintain the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art and note that it is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’357 patent and prior art. We further note that the skill level does not affect our analysis or our final decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In the Institution Decision, the Board adopted Petitioner’s construction of the term “adaptor.” Inst. Dec. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. PO Resp. 13–14. During oral argument, Petitioner argued that claim 1 requires “an adapter to be ligated onto a target DNA, and that adapter needs to have two different sequences of DNA that are used for identification” including a “socalled identifier that's one to eight nucleotides in an indexing site.” Tr. 6:19–7:2. Patent Owner, again, did not dispute this characterization of “adaptor.” See generally Tr. Based on the entirety of the trial record, we continue to apply Petitioner’s construction of the term “adaptor,” although we note that it does not affect our analysis.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on the entirety of the trial record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s reading of either the claims or the prior art because Patent Owner takes too narrow a view of both. First, based on the plain language of Porreca, we find it uses a combination of the sequence reads of the target sequence and differentiator tag sequences to determine whether there is duplication. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 139–140, 143, 148, 153. All that the claim requires is that the method identifies sequence reads with identical identifier and target sequences as duplicates. Because claim 1 contains the transition “comprising,” the claim is still satisfied if the category of identified duplicate reads contains identical labels and also contains more. Patent Owner admits that the identifier and target sequence do not have to be used simultaneously. Tr. 46:16–48:4. Instead, Patent Owner challenges whether Porreca uses the required elements in combination as recited in the challenged claims. Based on the record before us, we agree with Petitioner’s position especially in view of the open-ended nature of the claims and Patent Owner’s own admission that there is no temporal requirement for the use of target sequences and differentiator tag sequences. Specifically, we find that Porreca teaches using the combination of the target sequences and the differentiator tag sequence to determine whether particular sequence reads are unique or PCR duplicates. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 139–140, 143, 148, 153. The use of both such sequences meet the claim limitations. This finding is consistent with the prosecution history of the ’357 patent and how the applicant and examiner interpreted the claims. See Ex. 1013, 69–70, 78–79. Second, we find the disclosure of Porreca sufficient to demonstrate to an ordinarily skilled artisan that “collapsing” is done by comparing target sequences and differentiator tag sequences. Porreca specifically explains that: after multiple reads have been collected for a given locus, it is possible that due to bias (e.g., caused by PCR amplification steps), a large fraction of the reads are derived from a single originating molecule. This would skew the population of target sequences observed, and would affect the outcome of the genotype call.” slip op. at 30

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

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner for at least two reasons. First, Patent Owner fails to address the fact that Schmitt cites to McCloskey 2007. We find that the citation of McCloskey 2007 in Schmitt indicates that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of McCloskey to be highly relevant to the teachings of Schmitt and would have considered them to be both useful in the field of sequencing. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Second, Patent Owner fails to explain or even identify the purported structural differences between Schmitt and McCloskey that would prevent the teachings of McCloskey from being relevant to Schmitt. In addition, we credit the testimony of Dr. Metzker that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefits of adding a barcode to target sequences and would have looked to McCloskey and the batch-stamps it teaches because both Schmitt and McCloskey are in the same field and address the same problems. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110, 114. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the critical time would have had sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Schmitt and McCloskey to arrive at challenged claim 1.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 11,098,357 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,098,357
• Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00003 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, 12, 14, and 16–20 are unpatentable under § 103; the Board denied Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[W]ould have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and 2–3 years of practical engineering experience relating to information security systems that employ cryptographic keys to encrypt/decrypt digital data. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s expert regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. RMTA 19. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Villasenor, notes that “obviousness must be viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the field of information security using cryptographic keys for encryption and decryption of digital data, and my opinions are rendered on the basis of the definition of the ordinary artisan set forth in the Petition in view of that further clarification.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 19. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’178 patent specification. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “In reply, Patent Owner substantially repeats its arguments against Petitioner’s reliance on Peterka for the claim 1 content encryption key identifiers requirements. Reply RMTA 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 121; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 89, 93–95); see RMTA 14–15. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed in Section III.D.2.e)(2) above.” slip op. at 65

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

    “Patent Owner argues that there was no motivation to combine Peterka with Suzuki because Petitioner has argued that “Peterka can already identify content keys by using the allegedly unique sequence numbers or time stamps assigned to each message carrying a single content key.” PO Resp. 41–42 (citing Pet. 25). Patent Owner also challenges motivation to combine Suzuki because it “is not directed to a pay-by-time, pay-per-view, or subscription distribution model, in which a content key grants access to content that different clients must individually decide to purchase in discrete units or increments.” Id. at 36–37. Petitioner responds that, because Peterka disclosed alternative embodiments that did not use sequence numbers or time stamps to identify EMM/ECM messages, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated specifically assign identifications to individual keys as taught in Suzuki. Reply 22 (citing Pet. 26). Petitioner also argues that whether Suzuki was directed to unpurchased content was irrelevant, because Suzuki is cited to show multiple key responses were conventional. Id. at 19–20. Patent Owner does not otherwise specifically address the issue of motivation to combine Peterka, Suzuki, and Bocharov. See generally PO Resp. Nonetheless the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. We find, based on the record, that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Peterka, Suzuki, and Bocharov as proffered by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 45

  • ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner that the substitute claims are broadening. Because the amended wording only requires the key request to be made “in response to detecting” the boundary, rather than “ahead of” the boundary, the request can occur before or after the boundary. This is not a fanciful or unlikely possibility — such delayed requests are specifically contemplated by the ’178 patent: [I]f the packager 104 is unable to obtain a new content encryption key from the WFM 102 prior to the expiration of the current content encryption key, the packager 104 will continue to use the current content encryption key until such time as it is able to obtain a new key from the WFM 102. Ex. 1001, 6:32–37. It should be noted that the fixed period duration for key rotation may be viewed as a "target" period, as the packager 104 may not expire a key on the exact boundary. Ex. 1001, 8:9–11. The key expiration time from the WFM 102 may be viewed as a "suggested" expiration time, as the packager 104 may not be able to expire the key at the exact specified time.” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 9,313,178 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,313,178
• Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00004 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, and 19 are unpatentable under §103; the revised motion to amend proposing substitute claims 21–36 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Board first must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). Accordingly, a patent owner must provide a claim listing reproducing each proposed substitute claim, and must make an initial showing to demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure (and any earlier filed disclosure for which the benefit of the earlier filing date is sought); (3) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; and (4) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” slip op. at 60

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions regarding the” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 11,122,313 unpatentable
  Nonecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,122,313
• Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2025 · IPR2022-00218 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 2, 5, and 6 were held unpatentable as obvious; the motion to amend was denied for proposed claims 16–21 and dismissed for claims 22–23.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated by Patent Owner, more accurately reflects the subject matter of the ’704 Patent and the asserted prior art than does Petitioner’s articulation. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Petitioner does not explain how “control theory” and “applied mathematics” (Pet. 16) relate to the subject matter of the ’704 Patent or the asserted prior art, and Petitioner’s reference to “laboratory experience” (id.) is too general to be useful in defining the level of skill. Furthermore, whereas Petitioner requires a POSITA to have “x-ray and computing imaging experience” (id.), Patent Owner more particularly specifies “x-ray microtomography experience” (PO Resp. 5), which is the field of art for the ’704 Patent, as well as many of the asserted prior art references. Ex. 1001, code (54) (“High resolution direct-projection type x-ray microtomography system using synchrotron or laboratory-based x-ray source”); Ex. 1007 (discussing X-ray microcomputed tomography); Ex. 1008 (discussing X-ray nanotomography and microtomography); Ex. 1010, code (54) (“Method and apparatus for utilizing an electro-optic detector in a microtomography system”); Ex. 1011 (title: “Three- Dimensional X-ray Microtomography”). For those reasons, we apply Patent Owner’s definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Neither party proposes any express claim constructions. See Pet. 17 (“all claim terms should receive their plain and ordinary meaning”); PO Resp. 5 (applying the same constructions as Petitioner). In accordance with the Federal Circuit’s mandate, however, we adopt and apply herein “[t]he plain meaning of the term ‘between 1 and 10,’” which “includes tiny, and even undetectable, magnification” and, moreover, we take account that Jorgensen anticipates claim 1, including that limitation. Paper 38, 11–12. We determine that no other claim term requires express construction for purposes of resolving any controversy between the parties. 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 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “i. Spot Size as a Result-Effective Variable First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to “identify any prior art that discloses an x-ray source having the claimed spot size.” PO Resp. 45. We agree with Petitioner, however, that Patent Owner “fails to consider the advantages of a smaller spot size” –– advantages that would have been known to a POSITA, given that they are discussed “in each of these references.” Reply 19. Petitioner further directs us to evidence that Patent Owner’s own witness, Dr. Bentley, “agreed that a POSITA would have been aware of tradeoffs between smaller and larger spot sizes.” Id. (citing Ex. 1024, 45:14–47:20). In other words, the evidence supports that spot size would have been a result effective variable and, on this record, that optimizing that variable in view of various “tradeoffs,” recognized by Patent Owner’s own witness, would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id.; see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art”). Patent Owner does not counter Petitioner’s evidence on that point, but instead, refers us back to a related argument in the Response, pertaining to whether one would have undertaken that modification with a reasonable expectation of success, which we address below in connection with Patent Owner’s third argument. Sur-reply 18 (citing PO Resp. 47–49).” slip op. at 12

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

    “smaller spot sizes.” PO Resp. 45. We recognize that an obviousness challenge may be overcome “by showing that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention in any material respect.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). For a reference to teach away, however, it must state more than a general preference for an alternative invention. Specifically, it must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In Patent Owner’s view, “Jorgensen teaches away from smaller spot sizes” because smaller spot sizes “require significantly more power to generate the desired flux.” PO Resp. 45. Patent Owner directs us to evidence that, at best, illustrates that this disadvantage would have been among the “tradeoffs between smaller and larger spot sizes” that inform the selection. Ex. 1024, 45:14–47:20 (Dr. Bentley’s cross-examination testimony); see PO Resp. 45–46 (evidence of proposed disadvantage). This evidence does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. At best, we find that it may indicate a preference for a different spot size depending on the desired application.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,400,704 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,400,704
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 30, 2024 · IPR2023-00455 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Perego and JESD79-2; the Board dismissed Petitioner’s motion to exclude.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner “applies the skill level proposed by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 8. According to Patent Owner, “no aspect of this IPR . . . turns on this dispute.” PO Sur-reply 4. We accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Independent claim 1 recites memory devices arranged in ranks. Petitioner argues that a “rank” is “an independent set of one or more memory devices on a memory module that act together in response to command signals, including chip-select signals, to read or write the full bit-width of the memory module.” Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 126); Pet. Reply 1–2. Patent Owner disagrees that a rank can be a single memory device, but states that “the Board need not resolve that dispute to address the parties’ arguments regarding the challenged claims” because Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s proposed construction” “[s]olely for purposes of responding to this Petition.” PO Resp. 8–9; PO Sur-reply 4–5. Patent Owner also apprises us of a construction of “rank” from related district court litigation. PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2030, 12–15). Our Rules provide that “[a]ny prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We have considered the district court’s construction, and we note that, like Petitioner’s proposed construction, it provides that a rank can be one memory device. See Ex. 2030, 14 (“Accordingly, the Court concludes a ‘rank’ can include a single memory device.”). For our patentability analysis, we apply the construction of “rank” used by both parties (i.e., the construction proposed by Petitioner), and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–29 in View of Perego and JESD79-2” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on the foregoing discussion, we find that Perego’s disclosure suggests a JEDEC-compliant interface to a memory controller. Furthermore, the evidence shows that JEDEC-compliant modules were dominant in the market at the relevant time. For example, Dr. Przybylski testifies that, in the 2004-2005 timeframe, the vast majority of the DRAM devices and modules sold would have been compliant with one of the JEDEC standards, such that a general reference to DRAM, especially in the context of usage main memory of general purpose computer and server systems, would suggest to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] the use of JEDEC-standard compliant SDRAM devices or modules. Ex. 2024 ¶ 72. Petitioner asserts that the dominance of JEDEC-compliant modules “provid[es] additional motivation for the proposed combination.” Pet. Reply 5–6. Patent Owner counters that the “mere fact that JEDEC-standardized modules dominated the market at the time of the invention also does not provide motivation to modify Perego.” PO Sur-reply 11 (citing Virtek Vision Int’l ULC v. Assembly Guidance Sys., Inc., 97 F.4th 882 (Fed. Cir. 2024). We agree with Petitioner on this point. In the case relied on by Patent Owner, the Federal Circuit stated that “KSR did not do away with the requirement that there must exist a motivation to combine various prior art references in order for a skilled artisan to make the claimed invention,” and the court reversed the Board’s conclusion of obviousness finding that there was “no evidence of a design need or market pressure.” Virtek, 97 F.4th at 887–88. Here, Patent Owner’s own expert explains that JEDEC was a driving market force at the relevant time. Patent Owner also argues that modification of Perego’s architecture and memory system with a JEDEC-compatible bus would make it non-function. PO Resp. 29–30, 23–24 (“JEDEC-complaint, chip-select-dependent RDIMM architecture defined in JESD21-C is fundamentally at odds with the Rambus point-to-point topology and variable bit width interfaces of Perego.”). But Patent Owner’s “proposed” modifications would make Perego’s system non-functional for Rambus, not for JEDEC, which was the dominant memory module style in the market. Given JEDEC as the standard, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reason to pursue such a known option.” slip op. at 32

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

    “3. Objective indicia of non-obviousness Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of non-obviousness other than to respond to Petitioner’s assertion of evidence of “simultaneous invention.” PO Resp. 55–56. As discussed, the combination of Perego and JESD79-2 teaches or renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1, and there is no objective evidence of non-obviousness in the record.” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 9,858,215 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,858,215
• Forte Biosciences, Inc. v. University Of MassachusettsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · PGR2023-00014 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable for lack of written description and enablement under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the § 103 challenge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition, except to modify the level such that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with well-known inhibitors of IL-15 and IL-15R as described in the ’505 patent and recognized in the art as of April 2017.” Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). We adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art with Patent Owner’s proposed modification because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’505 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “this stage of the proceeding and that all terms are to given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 23; Resp. 38. We agree. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, 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)). Here, we determine that no claim construction is necessary.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “Finally, we are reminded that “a sufficient description of the genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. “[F]unctional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Here, however, the challenged claims are directed to methods using a wide range of different types of compounds purported to be “IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors” that are not part of a known or readily identifiable class, do not target the same biological pathway, do not have any common structural features, and do not appear to always function as inhibitors. See Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1575–77, 1579; Ex. 1046, 189:4–19, 191:15–192:15, 193:18–196:22, 198:21–199:21, 197:12–198:19, 200:1–8, 207:11–14, 203:3–10, 207:15–21, 236:12–24; Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 19–23, 56, 63–64, 80–85. Therefore, we find there is neither a representative number of species disclosed, nor a sufficient” slip op. at 21

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable

    “598 U.S. at 610. A “specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention. What is reasonable in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art.” Id. at 613. But the person of ordinary skill in the art cannot be left with merely “a hunting license” or obligated to engage in “painstaking experimentation” or “trial and error” to “see what works.” Id. at 614. Patent Owner argues that “the IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors disclosed in the specification were known in the art and “share the common ‘general quality’ of inhibiting a pathway known to be relevant to and having ‘particular fitness for the particular purposes’ of (id.) treating certain autoimmune diseases by blocking IL-15 signaling.” Sur-reply 14 (citing Ex. 1011, 22; Ex. 2013, 3; Ex. 2017, Abstr.; Ex. 2024, 17; Ex. 2025, 2–3, 6; Ex. 2027, 4; Ex. 2028, 9; Ex. 2029, 4; Ex. 2031, 23; Ex. 2118, 53:22–54:9; Ex. 1018, 1; Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 52–63, 80–83, 130; Ex. 1046, 231:20–25). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing, however, because the record shows that different IL-15-specific inhibitors may operate in different ways that may result in differential effects, some of which may not include inhibition at all. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶21, 23, 40, 71; Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1576, 1579; Ex. 2013, 4:1– 8; Ex. 2014, 4:9–15; Ex. 2015 ¶ 22; Ex. 2025, 4:34–5:2; Ex. 1046, 166:21– 24, 168:25–169:5, 207:23–209:22, 210:4–17, 210:24–211:6; Ex. 1011, 1:67–2:4; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 116, 134. Thus, we find that the record supports Drs. Abbas and Plott’s testimony, which we credit, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to hunt down and test every compound through painstaking Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–90, 92; Ex. 1047 ¶ 53 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that the “specification of the ’505 patent is essentially a black box (so far as which aspects of IL-15 signaling it inhibits and how it operates), leaving the reader to guess through trial and error which molecules might operate similarly to ChMBC7 and which do not.”); Ex. 1004 ¶ 61 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that “from the perspective of a clinician, the amount of experimentation required would be extremely burdensome and success would be speculative.”); Ex. 2007, 93:16–97:25, 38:208; Ex. 1046, 234:20–236:11. This is due to the fact that the claims (without limit) encompass any inhibition of any one of the various types of IL-15 signaling and various versions of the receptor, and even implicate other compounds that act on different targets but which inhibit the IL-15 signaling pathway. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 53, 68; Ex. 2005 ¶ 71; Ex. 1046, 254:4–255:11, 158:12–160:20. The evidence has shown that IL-15/IL-15R inhibition is complicated and unpredictable, with some inhibitors also capable of enhancing forms of IL-15 signaling rather than preventing it. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 25–26, 53; Ex. 2013, 2:10–18; Ex. 2014, 2:12–20; Ex. 2015 ¶ 3; Ex. 2025, 2:10–18; Ex. 2078, 267.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 11,278,505 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,278,505
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Digimedia Tech, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01182 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over Chiu and Gu; the Board made no patentability determination for claim 16 because its scope was indefinite.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Karam, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or Electrical Engineering, and two or more years of experience working with image processing or visual perception based video coding.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art without the qualifier “or more,” which introduces ambiguity. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’532 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “described as “pixels or groups of pixels” rather than “elements of an image.” This is supported by the ’532 patent specification’s discussion of “very small details in a frame” being “1–4 pixels” and “much larger details” being “up to 11 pixels.” Ex. 1001, 6:66–7:2. Indeed, Patent Owner’s counsel conceded at the oral hearing that details can be groups of pixels or even a 4 As discussed below (see infra § II.E.3), Patent Owner introduces an earlier internet dictionary printout and a dictionary volume excerpt for “detail” at Exhibits 2005 and 2007, respectively, with its opposition to Petitioner’s motion to exclude. See Exclude Opp. 5–6 (citing Exs. 2005, 2007). We find Patent Owner’s introduction of Exhibits 2005 and 2007 to be improper and untimely, so we disregard Exhibits 2005 and 2007. See infra § II.E.3. Patent Owner also cites certain college course notes in Exhibit 2003 to support its construction of “details” (see PO Resp. 11), but we accord no weight to Exhibit 2003 in light of Patent Owner’s statement that this exhibit is illustrative only and not substantive extrinsic evidence of the meaning of any claim term. See PO Resp. 13 n.2; Exclude Opp. 7; see infra § II.E.2. single pixel. Tr. 20:23–22:2. Furthermore, the specification sheds no light on what might constitute an “element of an image,” which makes Patent Owner’s proposal imprecise. Instead, Patent Owner’s proposal regarding “elements of an image” appears to be based entirely on a particular 2023 internet dictionary definition (see Ex. 2001, 1 (definition 2d)), which is extrinsic evidence that does not overcome the description in the specification. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 959 F.3d 1091, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he existence of one broader meaning in the field is not controlling. What matters is the meaning most appropriate in the context of the particular patent.”). Patent Owner’s dictionary evidence also merits little to no weight given the lack of evidence or testimony linking this particular definition to the understanding of an ordinarily skilled artisan as of the earliest possible effective filing date. See Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The terms used in patent claims are not construed in the abstract, but in the context in which the term was presented and used by the patentee, as it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention on reading the patent documents”); Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A [tribunal] construing a patent claim seeks to accord a claim the meaning it would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention”). For these reasons, we determine that “details” relate to pixels or groups of pixels.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “temporally separating . . . details of said frames” is not limited to full-frame analysis and includes per-pixel analysis as part of analyzing a frame. Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’532 patent describes per-pixel operations. PO Resp. 16–17 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1001, 9:13–15, 11:2–4) (describing both intra-frame and inter-frame processing related to pixels). Even if this were not the case, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that image filtering, even when applied to an entire frame, is performed by applying filters to individual pixel values. Pet. Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81, 85). This is supported by Dr. Karam’s unrebutted testimony, which itself is supported by other contemporaneous references in the record that she cites. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29, 81, 85; see also Ex. 1018 (“Jayant”), 1395 (discussing “block-by-block” motion compensation in successive frames); Ex. 1019 (“Wu”), 802 (“One approach to selective high-pass filtering . . . is to calculate the output of the filter whenever the high-pass operator covers pixels from at least two different regions, where there is a possibility that it is in the vicinity of an edge.”). Thus, we decline to limit “spatially and temporally separating” to full-frame analysis. And, as discussed in further detail below, Petitioner’s cited prior art discloses both per-pixel and per-frame filtering (see infra § II.D.3.b), thus making this aspect of Patent Owner’s construction unnecessary to resolve the instant controversy. See, e.g., 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 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner also shows that Gu teaches the recited “separating” even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, i.e., Gu’s calculation of the functions mg(x, y), bg(x, y), and ild(x, y, n) “set[s] apart, isolate[s], and divide[s]” spatial and temporal information from a frame. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 10:13–15, 10:34–11:28, 11:34–43. This is backed by Dr. Karam’s unrebutted testimony, which we credit, that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood these functions to be forms of separating details because they relate neighboring pixels to one another, both within the frame to which they belong and between frames.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 84. Although Patent Owner argues that calculating Gu’s functions does not amount to “a disclosure of separating pixels from a frame” (PO Resp. 23), Patent Owner’s argument does not square with its own conception of the similar “separating” operations disclosed in the ’532 patent (i.e., spatial-temporal analyzer 50 generating “filtered frames” and “difference frames”). Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:30–34, 7:5–6, 11:53–56).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,473,532 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,473,532
• Celltrion, Inc. v. Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, Genentech, Inc., And Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00578 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 6–11 are anticipated by NCT ’653, and claims 4, 5, and 12 are obvious over combinations including NCT ’653.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “of individuals” is not conventional. Dec. Inst. 8. We therefore found a POSA “would have been an individual with an M.D. specializing in the treatment of autoimmune disorders and having several years of experience treating patients with such disorders, including rheumatoid arthritis, or having several years of experience researching treatments for autoimmune disorders, including rheumatoid arthritis.” Id. We also clarified that such a POSA “may alternatively (or also) have a Ph.D. and would have access to individuals skilled in clinical medicine, pharmacokinetics and formulation.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s definition and notes that a POSA according to our definition from the Institution Decision “would be unable to develop [the claimed inventions] without assistance from other individuals.” PO Resp. 7–8 (citing Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Patent Owner, however, fails to consider the full scope of our definition. Specifically, Patent Owner does not account for the clarification that a POSA “would have access to individuals skilled in clinical medicine, pharmacokinetics and formulation.” Dec. Inst. 8. When considering our complete definition, we do not discern a substantive difference between our definition and the parties’ definition of a POSA. Petitioner appears to agree. Pet. Reply. 1 n.1 (“The challenged claims are unpatentable no matter which definition of a POSA is used.”).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “Here, the Specification reveals that “per dose” does not mean “per injection.” Indeed, the Specification treats those terms differently. For example, in describing “the invention,” the Specification repeatedly follows “per dose” with an exemplary parenthetical or clause specifying the frequency of administration. For example, the Specification states that “the invention concerns a method of treating an IL-6-mediated disorder . . . wherein the anti-IL-6R antibody is administered as a fixed dose of 162 mg per dose (e.g. administered every week or every two weeks).” See Ex. 1001, 4:33–38 (emphasis added); see also id. at 5:4–8 (stating “[t]he invention also concerns a method of treating an IL-6-mediated disorder . . . wherein the anti-IL-6R antibody is administered as a fixed dose of 324 mg per dose or 648 mg per dose (e.g. every four weeks or once every month)”) (emphasis added); 24:54–59 (stating “the invention provides a method of treating an IL-6 mediated disorder . . . wherein the anti-IL-6R antibody is administered as a fixed dose of 162 mg per dose (e.g. every week, every two weeks, or every ten days)”) (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification repeatedly interprets the term “per dose” to describe the frequency of the dose, and not the number of injections to administer the dose. In contrast, when specifying a single injection, the Specification uses the terms “per injection” or a “single dose.” For example, the Specification states, “[a]vailable subcutaneous formulation is in a 1 mL prefilled syringe delivering 0.9 mL 162 mg TCZ per injection.” Id. at 49:55–56 (emphasis dose of 0.9 mL corresponding to a dose of TCZ 162 mg TCZ”) (emphasis added). Thus, although the Specification makes clear when a single injection is used by stating “per injection” or “single dose,” the ’264 Patent does not use either of those terms in the claims.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Whether to treat a preamble as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in Cir. 2003). The Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Where, as here, the claims are directed to methods of using a composition for a specific purpose (i.e., treating rheumatoid arthritis), and the method comprises a single step of administering that composition, the Federal Circuit “has generally construed statements of intended purpose in such method claims as limiting.” Id. at 1340. Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, the preamble provides antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claims. That is, the preamble recites “treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a patient” and the claims recite “administering to the patient” (claims 1 and 10), “the RA patient” (claims 3– 5), and “administering to the RA patient one or more additional drug which treats the RA” (claim 6). Thus, considering the claims as a whole and the invention described in the patent, we determine the preamble of the claims to be limiting. See Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343 (finding preamble limiting where it provides antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claims). slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Decided for patent owner

    “benefit.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 54. Patent Owner and Dr. Silverman, however, ignore the other half of the Specification’s definition of “treatment,” which states: “‘Treatment’ of a subject herein refers to both therapeutic treatment and prophylactic or preventative measures.” See Ex. 1001, 15:1–2 (emphasis added). Thus, limiting the definition of “treatment” to mean only “therapeutic treatment,” as Patent Owner asserts, is inconsistent with the express definition in the Specification and, therefore, incorrect on its face. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (stating “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”). Moreover, the Specification defines the term “effective amount” as “an amount of the antibody that is effective for treating the IL-6 disorder.” Id. at 15:3–4. If “treatment” of the IL-6 disorder required efficacy, it would not be necessary for the Specification to define an “effective amount” for treating the disorder separately, as efficacy would be implicit in the term “treatment.” Consistent with this, the Specification defines certain subjects as “inadequate responder[s]” to various medications because they have experienced “an inadequate response to previous or current treatment . . . because of toxicity or inadequate efficacy.” Id. at 14:46–61 (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification uses the term “treatment” to encompass treating a patient with a certain medication, regardless of safety or efficacy.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,580,264 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,580,264
• Resi Media LLC v. Boxcast Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00067 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–36 are unpatentable under § 103; the Board relied on Morford and Maes, with Lu, McGrew, or Barreto for dependent-claim grounds, and did not reach Allen-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “With respect to the claimed ABD, we determine that even under Patent Owner’s construction requiring a “processor optimized for audio and video compression,” Petitioner has shown that the independent claims would have been obvious over Morford and Maes.10 Therefore, we need not construe the term to resolve the obviousness contentions at issue.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “circumvention of” is a limitation to specific steps or configurations, not to the entirety of the claimed method (for method claims 1–20) or system (for system claims 21–36). Using claim 1 as an example, the ABD must, “without any modification to or circumvention of the router . . . receive data . . . from the first server.” Ex. 1003, 38:34–36, 38:42–54. However, claim 1 also requires “establishing an Internet connection for the ABD behind the router” in which the “router prevents remote access to the ABD from outside the router.” Id. at 38:31–33. Clearly, the router cannot simultaneously prevent (all) remote access to the ABD from outside the router and also permit the first server to send data to the ABD. But the claim limits these two actions to the individual steps in which they appear. Only during the “establishing an Internet connection” step is the router required to “prevent remote access to the ABD.” And only the six stated autonomous ABD actions are required to be performed “without modification or circumvention of the router.”” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “For purposes of this Decision, we do not determine that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would be dispositive. We adopt our determination in the Institution Decision, in which we adopt the parties’ asserted level having between two to four years of experience. Inst. Dec. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “b) Analysis Having reviewed the entirety of the record and analyzed the evidence, we determine, with respect to the limitations not specifically contested by Patent Owner, that Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the record, in the manner discussed above. Regarding those limitations contested by Patent Owner, we address and analyze those limitations below. As discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the combination of Morford and Maes.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,154,317 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,154,317

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.