• Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01463 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–10 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “predict how the district court in the related district court litigation will proceed because the court may determine whether or not to stay any individual case . . . based on a variety of circumstances and facts beyond our control and to which the Board is not privy.” Sand Revolution II LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp., IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative). We decline to speculate on how the court may rule on the pending motion to stay. Accordingly, this factor is neutral.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. We decline to deny the Petition on a discretionary basis as requested by Patent Owner. Thus, for reasons explained below, we institute inter partes review of claims 1–10 of the ’706 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “TC(220), and ΔRz/Ra are result effective variables and that copper foils having ΔPD, TC(220), and ΔRz/Ra values that meet the values recited in claim 1 have advantageous properties. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 45 (Kim ’761, disclosing that preferably the “difference in peak count roughness Rpc between the shiny surface . . . and the matte surface . . . of the electrolytic copper foil . . . is preferably 60 or less” because “when the difference in the peak count roughness Rpc exceeds 60 capacity maintenance of the secondary battery is deteriorated.”);15 Ex. 1007, 3:16–23, 4:14–23 (Cheng, disclosing that the foils of Cheng’s invention have (220) and (311) surfaces that provide increased elongation and that solve a high roughness problem that rendered traditional products unsuitable for use in a lithium ion secondary battery), 10:27–34 (Cheng, disclosing that in the foils of Cheng’s invention “the roughness difference between both sides was extremely small” and thus “it was . . . not easy for the electrolytic copper foil to break or fracture during the charging-discharging cycles and the life of a battery is thus increased”), Tables 3 & 4 (Cheng, disclosing embodiments and comparative examples with TC(220) values meeting the requirements of claim 1); Ex. 1008, 6:36–44 (Wolski, disclosing that “the surface roughness Rz at the matte side of the untreated copper foil of the present invention is the same or smaller than the surface roughness Rz at the shiny side . . . so that the surface treated copper foil . . . becomes more low-profiled . . . whereby it becomes a foil having a large etching factor”), 9:1–29 & Table 2 (Wolski, disclosing 15 Dr. Randall testifies that “Kim ’761’s peak count roughness Rpc corresponds to the peak density PD of the ’706 patent.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 52. At this stage in the proceeding, this testimony is unrebutted. 38 embodiments meeting the ΔRz/Ra of claim 1, describing them as having “matte side roughnesses” that are “sufficiently small,” and as having “excellent” “high temperature elongation characteristics”), 11:37–41 (Wolski, describing comparative examples as having “large” matte side roughnesses “whereby etching factors are not good”), 12:12–27 (Wolski, teaching that “as compared with a conventional untreated copper foil, both surfaces of the untreated copper foil obtained by [Wolski’s] invention are flat” resulting in a low profile foil that has “excellent elongations at room temperature and high temperature and also high tensile strength”). The teachings in the prior art support the presently unrebutted testimony of Dr. Randall explaining why the POSA would have been motivated to modify Kim ’761’s copper foil to have the claimed TC(220) and ΔRz/Ra. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–68, 71–74; Pfizer Inc., v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 94 F.4th 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Where [a gap in prior art] includes a parameter not necessarily disclosed in the prior art, it is not improper to consider whether or not it would have been recognized as result-effective. If so, then the optimization of that parameter is ‘normally obvious.’”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner failed to articulate a sufficient motivation to combine the references. To the contrary, the preliminary record presents a strong showing that the POSA would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner described in the Petition.” slip op. at 38

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 4 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art”). Petitioner’s definition appears to be consistent with the field of the invention reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’706 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,591,706
• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2023-01384 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Yoshida and Saxler; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “In light of the record before us, we determine that we do not need to reach a specific finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 13

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the “side surfaces” limitation and determined that it was not necessary to further construe this term because “[t]he parties do not dispute that the language ‘side surfaces extending horizontally’ encompasses a gate material with sloped side surfaces as depicted in Figure 5 of the ’335 patent.” Inst. Dec. 11–16 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). We invited the parties to address this limitation further during the course of this trial, but neither party provided additional evidence or argument regarding the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 16; see generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-reply. Accordingly, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision that we do not need to construe the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 15– 16.” slip op. at 14

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

    “This evidence, particularly the language in the ’335 patent itself, undermines Patent Owner’s argument that “[t]he process for forming gate ledges using separate masks instead of the self-aligned process disclosed in the ’335 patent cannot produce ledges that are ‘substantially symmetric.’” PO Resp. 39 (emphasis added); see also PO Resp. 42–43 (arguing that a gate structure with ledges having substantially equal widths is “not achievable” without using a single photo-mask process). We have considered the evidence presented by Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert in support of Patent Owner’s arguments. PO Resp. 38–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 49–51. We, however, are unable to discern sufficient evidence supporting a conclusion that using separate masks cannot produce ledges that are substantially symmetric, particularly when the ’335 patent suggests otherwise. See Ex. 1001, 4:60– 63 (referring only to the “possibility of misalignment”). Even if, as Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert contend, misalignment “naturally” occurs when using a two-mask process, that does not foreclose the possibility that the” slip op. at 18

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

    “It is well settled that “[a] reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Furthermore, “teaching that a composition may be optimal or standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,312,335 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,312,335
• Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00139 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design” and “the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa.” Pet. 23. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner contended Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill is too high. Prelim. Resp. 32. According to Patent Owner, a POSITA would have had “an associate degree in an engineering discipline, and 1–2 years’ experience in electrical power systems” and “[a] lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). Our Institution Decision states that we preliminarily determined a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and two years of experience in electrical power systems. Inst. Dec. 5–6. Patent Owner’s Response states that Patent Owner applies the Board’s 9 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. preliminary determination (PO Resp. 6, n.3), and Petitioner did not subsequently address the issue. Based on the full record, we determine a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and two years of experience in electrical power systems. We are satisfied that this comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’291 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). slip op. at 6

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

    “the cable hangers (which support the current wires, data wires and other wires). That is, a single multi-function line supports the cable hangers, as a messenger wire, and provides a current path, as a grounding conductor.” Ex. 1001, 2:33–37 (emphasis added). And the sentence following that passage, which is cited by both parties, states: “Accordingly, as used herein, a ‘multi-function line’ means a tension member that supports current wires and/or cable hangers, and, which is conductive.” Ex. 1001, 2:37–40 (emphasis added). The sentences immediately following that sentence provide additional context, stating: “That is, a messenger wire is not a ‘multi-function line.’ Similarly, a conductor that does not support other constructs is not a ‘multi-function line.’” Ex. 1001, 2:40–42 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification indicates that a multi-function line is a tension member, “is conductive,” and supports other constructs such as current wires and/or cable hangers. In contrast, the specification does not mention “effective ground fault current path.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on the entire record, Petitioner shows that the combination of the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper satisfy the limitations of claim 1. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings, at least because the CAB Website expressly refers to the CAB Whitepaper, suggesting to a POSITA that the references’ teachings should be considered together. Pet. 47–48; see Reply 6–8.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “First, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not shown that the cited products are coextensive with, and have the required nexus between, the products and claim 1. See Reply 18–29. Even if Patent Owner sells an “Integrated Grounding System” that satisfies each limitation of claim 1, that system is undeniably comprised of “various” “exemplary” interchangeable parts that have uses outside of the claimed invention, that at least purportedly relate to many other of Patent Owner’s patents, and that were known in the prior art. E.g., Ex. 2064, ¶ 304 (identifying “exemplary” product part numbers, including CAB-9605, CAB-9705, CAB-9760, and CAB-9607), n.10; App’x A, A5 (identifying a part number “representative” part the “mid-pier kit”); Ex. 1049, 6–7 (identifying Patent Owner’s patent’s relating to different part numbers). For example, Patent Owner identifies two patent numbers purportedly protecting its “grounding Mid Pier Kit,” the ’551 patent and US Pat. No. 10,461,518. Ex. 1049, 6–7. Patent Owner identifies three of its patents as protecting its copper messenger wire, part number CAB-9605: (i) the ’551 patent, (ii) US Pat. No. 10,461,518, and (iii) US Pat. No. 10,811,859. Id. And Patent Owner identifies eight different patents, but not the ’551 patent, as protecting the cited cable hangers, CAB- 9760. Id. And as explained in the analysis above, all of these parts were known and available in the prior art, as evidenced by the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper. We can discern no nexus between the features of the ’551 patent and the alleged objective evidence of nonobviousness given that the so-called “Integrated System” includes multiple, interchangeable, and “exemplary” part numbers that were known in the prior art. See Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“But our case law makes clear that objective evidence of nonobviousness lacks a nexus if it exclusively relates to a feature that was known in the prior art—not necessarily well-known.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); see also Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,177,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,177,551
• Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00178 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 14–22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Almy; the Board did not reach the alternative Caveney grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner also asserts that the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We agree with Petitioner that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 recite an intended use. The bodies of both claims recite a structurally complete system comprising a messenger wire and a plurality of cable hangers that are disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire and have a plurality of cable carrying surfaces structured to support at least one electrical cable of the plurality of electrical cables and are separated by a cable carrier divider. Ex. 1001, 10:27–37. According to the preambles, the system are used “for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels.” Id. at 10:24–26. slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s construction “only replaces ‘organizing’ with ‘separating’” and “organizing” has a broader ordinary meaning than separating and includes “to arrange or order” not merely to separate. Reply 4 (citing Exs. 1052, 1053); id. at 5 (“Separated cables may be organized. But not all organized cables are necessarily separated.”). We adopt Petitioner’s interpretation of “organizing” as “to arrange or order.” Reply 4. This meaning is consistent with the preamble language of “[a] system for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels” comprising a messenger wire and cable hangers disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire with cable carrying surfaces that support electrical cables separated by a divider. Ex. 1001, 10:24–37. The system organizes electrical cables by (1) suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers, (2) supporting the cables on cable carrying surfaces of each cable hanger, and (3) separating the cables on adjacent cable carrying surfaces of the cable hangers by using a divider. The “organizing” in the preamble encompasses each of these ways of arranging or ordering the electrical cables but is not limited to any particular way of doing so and merely recites an intended use of the systems. Because we interpret the preamble as reciting an intended use of the systems, we also interpret this portion of the preamble as an intended use of those systems. Our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s interpretation that organizing means separating because the combination of Almy and Carr renders obvious a system for organizing electrical cables extending from solar panels by suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers that also separate the cables, as discussed infra in Section II.D. See Reply 12 n.4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner argues that a skilled artisan would not have replaced Almy’s wire loops with Carr’s hangers to prevent cross-induction because Almy discloses only DC power cables that extend from the photovoltaic (PV) modules to a combiner box and inverter that converts DC current to AC current without disclosing AC cables or data cables in close proximity to Almy’s DC cables that could create a cross-induction effect. PO Resp. 39– 44 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 15, 34, Figs. 3, 6; Ex. 2038 ¶¶ 153, 154, 157–160, 163; Ex. 2004, 85:23–86:2, 148:9–14, 154:12–19). We disagree. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have used Carr’s cable hangers to organize electrical cables in Almy’s solar power system and prevent cross-induction between AC, DC, and/or data cables. Pet. 45–46; Reply 12–13; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55. A skilled artisan would know that Carr’s cable hangers would improve Almy’s solar power system by supporting AC, DC, and/or data cables without cross-induction. Pet. 46; Reply 13; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 48, 96–99; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34, 2:15–27, Fig. 1. Carr’s hangers would satisfy regulations requiring AC and DC cables to be separated. Reply 13. Because Almy’s wire loops cannot comply with NEC regulations that require the separation of AC, DC, and data cables, they limit the ability of Almy’s system to power trackers with AC current to move PV modules to track the sun and obtain maximum power. Ex. 1001, 1:20–56; PO Resp. 7–8 (describing the solar industry trend to use trackers and NEC rules requiring separation of AC, DC, and signal cables for such systems). Carr’s hangers would enable Almy’s solar power system to organize AC, DC, and data cables for solar panels and trackers on a single messenger wire to increase efficiency, comply with NEC rules, prevent cross induction, and avoid the costs of trenching and cable trays. Reply 12–13; Pet. 45–47; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34 (Carr’s cable hangers separate arial conducting cables to minimize cross induction); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–36 (describing the benefits of separating electrical cables with hangers), 48, 96–98 (wire loops cannot prevent cross induction between current- and non-current-carrying cables as hangers do); Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55 (NEC rules require separation of AC, DC, and signal cables); see Metso Mins., Inc. v Powerscreen Int’l Distrib., 526 F. App’x 988, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding a motivation to combine to create a solution that complies with road permit regulations). Carr’s hangers would provide a simple, robust means to support and separate current- and non-current-carrying cables to prevent cross induction without deforming under load in Almy’s solar power system. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)) (“This is the so-called ‘known-technique’ rationale. And if there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.”); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (an implicit motivation to combine exists when a combination produces a stronger, cheaper, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, and/or more efficient product); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32 (IEEE Standard 142 and NSC Rule 235G require spacing of current-carrying and data cables to avoid cross-linking), 42 (2014 NEC spacing requirements), 96–99 (Carr’s hangers support and space conducting cables to prevent cross-linking).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 11,349,291 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,349,291
• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. 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)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,008,483
• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Adb Safegate Sweden AB / Adb Safegate BV et al. v. Honeywell International Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2025 · PGR2023-00053 · APJ James P Calve · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 6–10, and 13–20 are also unpatentable over Berkmo, and claims 1–20 over Berkmo and Richman.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have “held at least a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a similar discipline, with at least two years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing, planning, or implementing sensor networks using LIDAR, radar and/or cameras and corresponding data analysis” and “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18– 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill as articulated above. Petitioner’s description appears to be consistent with the prior art cited and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’349 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We reject Patent Owner’s interpretation because it limits the claims to an exemplary embodiment that “can, for example, provide the remaining distance and the horizontal deviation with respect to the center line of a path” (Ex. 1001, 10:8–11), and it reads limitations of that embodiment into the claims. Absent a lexicographic definition or a disavowal, such claim interpretations are not permissible. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312, 1316 (claims are given their ordinary, customary meaning in the context of the entire patent and the specification absent a lexicographic definition or a disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’”) (citation omitted). Patent Owner has not asserted a definition or a disclaimer to support its interpretation. PO Resp. 16–17. The parties agree that “directional guidance” includes “navigational instructions” and “maneuvering guidance information.” PO Resp. 16 (“the claims make clear that this guidance refers to the navigational instructions to be provided to the pilot guiding the airplane”), 17 (a skilled artisan “reading the challenged claims in light of the specification would understand that ‘directional guidance’ refers to navigational instructions including the horizontal deviation with respect to the center line of a path”); Reply 21 (Berkmo teaches providing “pilot maneuvering guidance information . . . for aiding a pilot of the approaching aircraft towards [a] parking position”); Pet. 54 (Berkmo provides maneuvering guidance information). We interpret “directional guidance” as navigational instructions and maneuvering guidance information. This interpretation is consistent with the claims, which do not recite features of “directional guidance,” much less a horizontal deviation with respect to a center line as Patent Owner asserts.” slip op. at 10

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that the merging recites mental processes because the algorithms described in the specification (Ex. 1001, 8:50–9:10) can be performed as mental processes. Pet. 20–22; Reply 9–11; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–58; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351–52, 1353–54 (receiving time stamped synchronized phasor measurements at different points of an electric power grid and analyzing and updating the measurements in real time using limits, sensitivities, and rates of change of dynamic stability metrics derived from voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes recite mental processes); id. at 1354 (analyzing data by mental steps or mathematical algorithms is an abstract mental process). Merging data by transforming and converting it from one format to another is an abstract idea. See AI Visualize, Inc. v Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“But ‘converting information from one format to another . . . is an abstract idea.’” (citation omitted); creating virtual views in real time by “creating the requested frames of the requested views from the volume visualization dataset” created a virtual view from the existing volume visualization dataset as “abstract data manipulation”); Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the method receives, displays, converts, stores, and transmits digital video data using result-based functional language); FICEP Corp. v. Peddinghaus Corp., No. 2022-1590, 2023 WL 5346043, *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2023) (the focus of the advance is on automating the identification, extraction, and transfer of a 3D rendering of an object by a CAD design model including dimensions and intersection parameters without specifying how intersection parameter data was generated or used to create a design model and therefore encompasses a human deriving intersection parameters and adding this data to the design model for extraction); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”) (quoting Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978) (“If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”)); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (mathematical relationships include converting binary coded decimal numerals to pure binary numerals as did the claims in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972)); see also Tr. 22:24–25:23.” slip op. at 20

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “The ordered combination of elements recites no more than when the elements are considered individually and thus does not provide an inventive concept. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “[w]hen considered individually or in combination with the other claimed elements, the reliance on this merged data from a camera and LIDAR/RADAR sensor is itself an inventive concept because it was not conventional and improves the technology of aircraft tracking and guidance.” PO Resp. 49–50. Merging data from two different sensors is part of the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept that makes that abstract idea patent eligible. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291–92; Guidance at 56. “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91. “It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” Id. at 1290. Even if merging camera and LIDAR/RADAR sensor data is treated as an additional element, the description of the point cloud process and iterated point cloud algorithm indicates Patent Owner did not invent or improve the merging process. Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:40; MPEP § 2106.05(d)I.2. (a generic description indicates that elements are conventional enough that no further description is needed to satisfy § 112(a)); see AI Visualize, 97 F.4th at 1379 (converting data from one format to another is an abstract idea); Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App’x 900, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (encoding and decoding image data and converting data formats are abstract ideas). Dr. Campbell and Mr. Wilson testify that merging data is known for detecting and tracking objects and navigation. Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 41–51, 56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–65, 81–87; Ex. 1045, 20:6–23:18. A “data fusion process” is not claimed, much less one of any particular features. See PO Resp. 50. Nor do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of sensors. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–67, 83; iLife, 839 F. App’x at 538 (because sensors for measuring static and dynamic acceleration were known, and claim 1 did not recite unconventional means for processing that data, sensing and processing the static and dynamic acceleration information using generic components did not transform the nature of claim 1 into patent eligible subject matter).” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,538,349 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,538,349
• Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12

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

    “art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26

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

    “stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,198,416
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2025 · IPR2023-01344 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–7, 11–13, and 15–17 over Sinharoy; claims 2 and 10 over Sinharoy and Xu; and all challenged claims under the listed Tang grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In the Institution Decision we determined Petitioner’s description was consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of that decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 10–11. Now Patent Owner argues for a “more precise definition” offered in the Horst Declaration and adopted in the Brogioli Declaration. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 25). effects any patentability issue. The only difference between the two is the addition of “two years of experience working with multicore processor systems, central processing unit (CPU) , cache, and memory systems” as the experience level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Compare Inst. Dec. 10–11 (citing Pet. 8) and Ex. 1007 ¶ 30 and Ex. 2001 ¶ 25. No mention of the difference between the two levels of ordinary skill is made in any of the papers filed. Regardless, inasmuch as both experts agree to the level of ordinary skill, we find the experience associated with the level of ordinary skill is “two years of experience working with multicore processor systems, central processing unit (CPU) , cache, and memory systems.” The level of education is unchanged from the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We are not persuaded to change our preliminary construction. First, Patent Owner misstates our construction of “single caching agent” by adding the language “each associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of cores.” That language is present in the claim as a separate limitation. See Section I.E (limitation [1g]) above. This added language is not present in our preliminary construction, which states only that a “single caching agent” means “one caching agent for the processor, which may be formed from distributed portions.” Inst. Dec. 12. Thus, that each “single caching agent” is “associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of cores” is a separate limitation. Second, none of the above citations to the ’895 patent is contrary to our construction. Our construction states that a “single caching agent” is recited. That is what is repeated in Patent Owner’s citations. Third, the ’895 patent’s description of Figure 6 explains that a “single caching agent” may be formed from distributed portions, as do the claim limitations in question. See Ex. 1001, 6:35–37. Other than tacking on the second recitation of “distributed portions” to the “single caching agent” portions” part of our construction is incorrect. The Brogioli Declaration repeats the above citations to the ’895 patent” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “In an IPR, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication.” Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F. 3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence can locate it.” Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380 (citations, quotations, and alterations omitted). The evidence of record supports our finding that Xu was publicly available at an IEEE conference occurring from November 14 through 15, 2011. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 8–11, Ex. A (Xu). Xu has a copyright date of 2011 which, although not dispositive of the date of public accessibility, is relevant evidence of public accessibility at the conference. Ex. 1005, 1. Exhibit 1014 confirms the conference dates of November 14–15, 2011, which antedates the December 31, 2011, critical data that Patent Owner asserts for the ’895 patent (PO Resp. 26; see Reply 13–14) and the December 13, 2011, priority date of the ’895 patent (Ex. 1001, at code [63], 1:5–7). Ex. 1014. Whether or not Exhibit 1019 is hearsay or authenticated, the MacPherson Declaration and IEEE Explore evidence is sufficient to show that Xu was available at the November 14–15, 2011 conference. The Motion to exclude Exhibit 1019 is denied as moot. slip op. at 41

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “The evidence of record supports our finding that Xu was publicly available at an IEEE conference occurring from November 14 through 15, 2011. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 8–11, Ex. A (Xu). Xu has a copyright date of 2011 which, although not dispositive of the date of public accessibility, is relevant evidence of public accessibility at the conference. Ex. 1005, 1. Exhibit 1014 confirms the conference dates of November 14–15, 2011, which antedates the December 31, 2011, critical data that Patent Owner asserts for the ’895 patent (PO Resp. 26; see Reply 13–14) and the December 13, 2011, priority date of the ’895 patent (Ex. 1001, at code [63], 1:5–7). Ex. 1014. Whether or not Exhibit 1019 is hearsay or authenticated, the MacPherson Declaration and IEEE Explore evidence is sufficient to show that Xu was available at the November 14–15, 2011 conference. The Motion to exclude Exhibit 1019 is denied as moot.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 9,575,895 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,575,895
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.