- Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alpinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–22 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its three obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined EP’536 (with or without Hatton) and CN’180 in the proposed manner, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1 and 18. 5. Claims 2–17 and 19–22 Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonably likelihood of prevailing with respect to independent claims 1 and 18, Petitioner also has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the claims that depend therefrom (claims 2–17 and 19–22).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not offer its own definition of the level of ordinary skill or dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s unchallenged description of an ordinarily skilled artisan appears consistent with the subject matter discussed in the references and that of the challenged claims, for purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“For purposes of our analysis, we need only address the meaning of “planar structure,” and only to note that this limitation requires that all portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00747 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Buttiker was not prior art, so Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5, 6, 9, or 10 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“establish a reasonable likelihood of proving that any of the challenged claims would have been obvious because all of the challenges rely on Buttiker for specific limitations, and Buttiker is not prior art to the challenged claims of the ’271 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“When claiming the benefit of priority to a provisional application, the provisional application must provide written description support for the claims in question. See 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) (referring to “an invention 10 Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s arguments on this point in its Preliminary Reply. See Prelim. Reply 2–4. disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a)”); see also New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]o be afforded the priority date of the provisional application, . . . the written description of the provisional must adequately support the claims of the non-provisional application.”). Patent Owner argues that the ’688 provisional application supports claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the ’271 patent because they describe the method of controlling the pumps and thermal modulators to achieve selected temperatures upstream of the brewing chamber and creating a resulting solvent used to infuse a solute, creating an infused beverage. See Prelim. Sur-reply 3–4 (citing Prelim. Resp. 16–18, 35–37; Ex. 1012, 12–15). Patent Owner also refers to Figure 2 of the ’688 provisional application, which discloses the device that performs the method described in the application. See id. at 4–5. With one exception that we address immediately below, Petitioner does not contest these assertions or argue that the ’688 provisional application fails to disclose the subject matter claimed in claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the ’271 patent. See Pet. 18–20; Prelim. Reply 2–4. Based on our review of the record, the ’688 provisional application provides adequate written description support for the challenged claims of the ’271 patent.11 See Ex. 1012, 11–15 (describing Figure 2 of the ’688 provisional application and related methods), Fig. 2.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference not prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for patent owner
“only qualify as prior art under section 102(a)(1) because section 102(a)(2) does not apply to purely foreign patent publications like Buttiker. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) (describing scope of prior art as including “a patent issued under section 151” (addressing issued U.S. patents) and “an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b)” (addressing published U.S. applications)); MPEP § 2152 (“The documents upon which a prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be based are U.S. patent documents only.”).10 Under section 102(a)(1), Buttiker may be prior art if it “was patented [or] described in a printed publication . . . before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Buttiker published after the ’688 provisional application was filed, but before the other applications to which the ’271 patent claims priority were filed. See Ex. 1010, 1; Ex. 1001, code (60). Accordingly, whether the ’271 patent claims at issue here have adequate support in the ’688 provisional application determines whether Buttiker is prior art to those claims because Buttiker’s publication predates later applications to which the ’271 patent claims priority.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“When claiming the benefit of priority to a provisional application, the provisional application must provide written description support for the claims in question. See 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) (referring to “an invention 10 Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s arguments on this point in its Preliminary Reply. See Prelim. Reply 2–4. disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a)”); see also New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]o be afforded the priority date of the provisional application, . . . the written description of the provisional must adequately support the claims of the non-provisional application.”). Patent Owner argues that the ’688 provisional application supports claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the ’271 patent because they describe the method of controlling the pumps and thermal modulators to achieve selected temperatures upstream of the brewing chamber and creating a resulting solvent used to infuse a solute, creating an infused beverage. See Prelim. Sur-reply 3–4 (citing Prelim. Resp. 16–18, 35–37; Ex. 1012, 12–15). Patent Owner also refers to Figure 2 of the ’688 provisional application, which discloses the device that performs the method described in the application. See id. at 4–5. With one exception that we address immediately below, Petitioner does not contest these assertions or argue that the ’688 provisional application fails to disclose the subject matter claimed in claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the ’271 patent. See Pet. 18–20; Prelim. Reply 2–4. Based on our review of the record, the ’688 provisional application provides adequate written description support for the challenged claims of the ’271 patent.11 See Ex. 1012, 11–15 (describing Figure 2 of the ’688 provisional application and related methods), Fig. 2.” slip op. at 12
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,957,271 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01492 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner fails to establish that Coccia discloses “a resulting solvent valve” as required by claim 1 and as alleged in the Petition. See Pet. 35–42. 4. Conclusion Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Coccia and Anson. The remaining challenged claims, claims 2–9, all ultimately depend from claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 18:42–19:48. Petitioner’s obviousness challenges to claims 2–9 build on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 10, 43–70, 79–86. Accordingly, for the same reasons we discuss above in the context of claim 1, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood in prevailing on its challenge to any of the dependent claims.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“cites the specification for support, but that argument largely misses the point and elides the claim requirements tied to the resulting solvent valve. See Pet. 35; Prelim. Reply 4. Patent Owner agrees with the general proposition that “a resulting solvent valve” means one or more resulting solvent valves. See Prelim. Resp. 10 (acknowledging that “two duplicative resulting solvent valves having the three positions” could each qualify as “a resulting valve”); Prelim. Sur-reply 4–5 (“Had Petitioner cited to multiple ‘resulting solvent’ valves that each” meet the claim requirements, “Patent Owner would not have raised an issue.”). The general statement that “a” or “an” means “one or more than one,” however, does not support Petitioner’s argument that the limitation broadly covers systems where no single resulting valve meets the three claimed valve positions. The dispute does not turn on whether “a” means “one or more than one”; the dispute, rather, concerns whether the claim allows for multiple valves to meet the three claimed states or whether a single valve must meet those claim requirements.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that Coccia discloses the claimed “resulting solvent valve.” Importantly, Petitioner premises its argument for this limitation on a claim construction that we rejected in our analysis above. Because we determine that the claim requires at least one resulting valve to meet the three claimed states identified in the claim, Petitioner may not rely on a combination of Coccia’s valves 26 and 36 to provide the three claimed states, as Petitioner does throughout its analysis. See Pet. 35–42; Prelim. Reply 4. As to Petitioner’s alternative argument that Anson discloses the claimed resulting solvent valve, we decline to consider the argument because it was not included in the Petition and was made for the first time in Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply. See Pet. 35–42; Prelim. Reply 5. Petitioner relied on Anson in the Petition as an alternative reason to find that it would have been obvious to place Coccia’s valve 36 in the claimed location (downstream of the conduit joint and upstream of the brewing chamber), not to meet all of the limitations associated with the resulting solvent valve. See Pet. 38–39. Moreover, Petitioner’s limited argument and evidence in the Preliminary Reply lacks adequate development and fails to persuade us that Anson’s valve 28 performs all of the “claimed functions” associated with the resulting solvent valve, including the two “active” states that the Petition addresses with reliance on Coccia alone. See Pet. 40–42; Prelim. Reply 5. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner fails to establish that Coccia discloses “a resulting solvent valve” as required by claim 1 and as alleged in the Petition. See Pet. 35–42. 4. Conclusion Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Coccia and Anson. The remaining challenged claims, claims 2–9, all ultimately depend from claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 18:42–19:48. Petitioner’s obviousness challenges to claims 2–9 build on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 10, 43–70, 79–86. Accordingly, for the same reasons we discuss above in the context of claim 1, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood in prevailing on its challenge to any of the dependent claims.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,772,456 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01483 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–12 would be unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the challenged claims in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenges in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least the following (or equivalents): a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering with at least five years of experience in product design; or an M.S. degree in mechanical engineering with at least two years of experience in product design.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, 13). Patent Owner “submits a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would be a mechanical or materials engineer, or other similar degree, having at least two to three years of personal experience in designing or development of espresso machines.” Prelim. Resp. 8. In the alternative, Patent Owner states that “because Petitioner’s definition is so close to that of Patent Owner’s definition, that no express finding is necessary to find Petitioner has not met its burden to show with particularity that claim 1 is unpatentable.” Id. We find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’524 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of this case would remain the same if we applied Patent Owner’s similar proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The parties propose constructions for several claim terms. For example, Petitioner contends that we should construe “conduit,” “coupled,” “another solvent,” and “dynamically modulate.” See Pet. 13–17. Patent Owner reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s constructions and proposes its own constructions for “another solvent” and “communicatively coupled.” Prelim. Resp. 9–11. We determine that we need not construe any of these additional terms to determine whether Petitioner met its burden as to any of its challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that any of them disclose an electronic controller coupled to two pumps and a thermal modulator, such as a heater. Petitioner suggests that Lai’s controller controls two “pump(s),” but Lai appears to describe a single pump 138, and Petitioner fails to point to any disclosure or suggestion in Lai that its system employs more than one pump. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1002, 41–42); Ex. 1007 ¶ 98, Fig. 60. Petitioner does not directly assert that Santi discloses a controller connected to two pumps, and it too, like Lai, appears to only disclose a single pump. See Pet. 39; Ex. 1005 ¶ 64, Fig. 1. Petitioner correctly notes that Majer discloses controller 9 connected to two pumps, but we agree with Patent Owner that only one of those pumps meets the requirements of the claimed pumps, which are both connected to conduits that eventually lead to the brewing chamber. See Pet. 40; Prelim. Resp. 28; Ex. 1008, 9:11–12 (describing circuit C2 containing pump 4bis as not including any “brewing means”). In addition, Petitioner does not allege, and Majer does not appear to disclose, a controller coupled to Majer’s heating elements. See Pet. 40. Based on the foregoing, none of the prior art Petitioner relies on discloses an electronic controller that controls both claimed pumps and a thermal modulator. Despite these deficiencies, Petitioner summarily concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that it would be obvious to combine Startz’s machine with the electronic controller of any of Lai, Santi, and/or Majer, and that such electronic controller would be communicatively coupled to both the thermal modulator and the pumps.” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002, 43). The Petition provides no additional rationale or argument in support of this conclusion, and the cited declarant testimony provides no further analysis. See id.; Ex. 1002, 43. Given the lack of any teaching of a controller coupled to two pumps and a thermal modulator, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to provide some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in a manner that meets the limitation.14 Because the Petition lacks any such statement or rationale, we find Petitioner’s obviousness argument and evidence lacking in this critical respect.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,576,524 - Vectair Systems Inc. v. Fresh Products, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00824 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not establish that the listings were prior art or provide sufficient evidence and motivation for the obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may be instituted only upon a showing that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and information presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we decline to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). At the institution stage, the “burden is on the petitioner to identify with particularity evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, 21 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). This differs from the standard in a final written decision, at which point “the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication.” Nobel Biocare Servs. 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)).” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“c. Discussion Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Amazon Listings were publicly accessible before the priority date of the ’098 patent, and therefore fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Amazon Listings qualify as printed publications. As explained in a previous Board decision, “[t]he date that a product was listed as first available on a website . . . is not sufficient evidence that the content of the listing, including the photographs depicted therein, were published at that time.” Next Step Grp., Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., No. IPR2024-00525, 2024 WL 3678413, at *5 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024) (citing Ex parte Basulto, Appeal 2020-00129, 2021 WL 1264902, at *2 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2021) (stating “the date [a] product was listed on Amazon.com is not compelling evidence that the content of [the] listing itself as shown in the document, and the photographs relied on within it were published at that time”). That is because product listings may be updated and photographs of the products may change over time and, therefore, a statement on a commercial website as to when a product was “first available” is insufficient evidence without additional corroborating evidence that the listing itself, or any photograph depicted therein, has not changed over time. See id. (citing Ex parte Zhang, Appeal 2021-000087, 2021 WL 633718 at *3 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2021) (stating “while the [webpage] date indicates that the product information was last updated on [date], there is no additional evidence to corroborate that the picture was publicly accessible on that date”)). In this case, Petitioner does not provide sufficient corroborating evidence that any of the information or images depicted in the Amazon Listings were available and remained unchanged on the website prior to the critical date. In contrast, Patent Owner provides evidence in the form of testimony of Mr. Smith, which we find credible, that the Amazon Listings offering the Wave 3D Urinal Screen for sale could not have existed prior to November 2014, the priority date of the ’098 patent. d. Conclusion In view of the above, we determine that, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of claims 1, 19, and 38 with respect to Ground 1.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“b. Legal Standard “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, “[a] party seeking to invalidate a patent on the basis of obviousness must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted); see also In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “conclusory statements” are “insufficient articulations of motivation to combine” prior art references). When an assertion of obviousness “fails to identify any actual reason why a skilled artisan would have combined the elements in the manner claimed,” the assertion of obviousness “is inadequate.” See In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Furthermore, unsupported statements that a combination of elements would have been merely a design choice is insufficient to establish obviousness. See Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy–America, Inc., IPR2015–00677, Paper 15 at 37 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 2, 2015) (“[t]he mere recitation of the words ‘common sense’ or ‘design choice,’ however, without any evidentiary support, adds nothing to the obviousness equation.” (citing Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F. 3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,145,098 - Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v. Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC, And Flex-Chem Services CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00822 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5‒6. “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. There is some overlap among these factors and some facts may be relevant to more than one factor. Id. In evaluating the factors, the Board takes a holistic view of whether the efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review. Id.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“from his Declaration cited on page 17 of the Petition, however, Dr. Harwell essentially repeats verbatim the conclusions from the Petition quoted above: 98. As such, Ayers discloses that subterraneous formations of metal-polymer complexes may result due to previous injections of fracturing fluid. For example, fracturing fluid containing polyacrylamide, a common polymer additive to fracturing fluid, may intrude the natural formation and have negative interactions in the way of forming a metal-polymer complex with metal ions naturally present in the formation. Harwell Decl. ¶ 98, cited at Pet. 17. Dr. Harwell provides no additional scientific or technical basis for these conclusory restatements of Petitioner’s assertions, and we find Dr. Harwell’s testimony on this issue entitled to little weight. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15– 17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (denying institution and determining that testimony of a declarant that merely repeats, verbatim, conclusory assertions from a petition, without citing additional supporting evidence or providing technical reasoning to support the testimony, is entitled to little weight), cited at Prelim. Resp. 31 (arguing that paragraph 98 of the Harwell Declaration “repeats the Petition essentially verbatim and fails to provide any further evidence or explanation on how Ayers discloses (or even suggests) the claimed subject matter”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). We also view Petitioner’s and Dr. Harwell’s conclusions as lacking because they fail to demonstrate that a “subterranean-formed metal-polymer complex” would necessarily have been present in Ayers’s subterranean formations. Instead, as noted by Patent Owner, both Petitioner and Dr. Harwell can muster only that “subterraneous formations of metal-polymer complexes may result due to previous injections of fracturing fluid” and that “fracturing fluid containing polyacrylamide . . . may intrude the natural formation and have negative interactions in the way of forming a metal-polymer complex . . . .” Pet. 17; Harwell Decl. ¶ 98 (emphasis added); see Prelim. Resp. 31–32 (presenting this argument). Even assuming these statements to be accurate, and even if the statements are unrebutted at trial, they are not sufficient on the record here to demonstrate compelling merits of anticipation. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).9” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner states—without any supporting evidence—that Patent Owner (assumedly in the Parallel Litigation) has described a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the [challenged p]atent [as having] at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, petroleum engineering, geology, or the equivalent, and at least two years of experience in oil and natural gas well treatments, or an equivalent amount of relevant work and/or educational experience. Pet. 5. Petitioner “is prepared to adopt” this definition for this proceeding. Id. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears consistent with the record in this proceeding, including the prior art. Prelim. Resp. 10–11; GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt, and apply below, the definition proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner does not propose constructions for any claim terms. See Pet. 11–12. In response, Patent Owner “agrees to accept the construction for any claim terms from the [challenged] patent it presented in district court . . . [,] none of which require a construction different from the plain import of the claim language itself.” Prelim. Resp. 12. Based on the current record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe 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 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,697,282 - Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v. Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC, And Flex-Chem Services CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00815 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–13 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“currently scheduled to begin on January 14, 2025. Prelim. Resp. 55 (citing Ex. 2003 (Specialized Scheduling Order in the Parallel Litigation) at 2). Based on the date of issuance of this Decision, the beginning of the trial in the Parallel Litigation is over eight months before any final decision would have been due had inter partes review been instituted. This large length of time from the trial in the Parallel Litigation to the due date of the final decision in this proceeding weighs strongly in favor of discretionary denial. As stated in the Guidance Memo, “when considering the proximity of the district court’s trial date to the date when the PTAB final written decision will be due, the PTAB will consider the median time from filing to disposition of the civil trial for the district in which the parallel litigation resides.” Guidance Memo 3. Patent Owner provides median time-to-trial statistics for the Oklahoma District Court, which predict a trial date approximately 26.9 months after the Parallel Litigation’s filing date of April 13, 2023. See Prelim. Resp. 56 (citing Ex. 2005 at 2). Because the predicted trial date—approximately July 17, 2025—still precedes by two months the due date of any final decision had inter partes review been instituted, the statistics provided also weigh in favor of denial of institution. Given the proximity of the current trial date—less than four months from the date of this Decision—and the lack of any indication from the parties that the trial date will not hold or that either party seeks a later trial date, we view this factor as strongly favoring discretionary denial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial,” show it is “highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” Guidance Memo 4; OpenSky, Paper 102 at 49. For the reasons above, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not satisfy the “compelling merits” standard as to any ground presented. D. Overall Balancing of the Fintiv Factors We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of the Fintiv factors. As discussed above, we have determined that the first five Fintiv factors overall weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution. Moreover, we have further determined that the Petition does not show compelling merits under the sixth Fintiv factor. We therefore conclude that the evidence of record favors exercising our discretion to deny institution. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 29
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Harwell Decl. ¶¶ 167–169); see also Prelim. Resp. 28–29 (presenting this argument). In the three relevant paragraphs from his Declaration cited on page 18 of the Petition, Dr. Harwell, however, merely restates, word for word, two disclosures from Frenier8 quoted from the same page of the Petition, and contends (essentially repeating verbatim the statement from the Petition quoted at the beginning of this paragraph): “It would have been obvious to [one of ordinary skill in the art] in light of Frenier to apply the methods and compositions disclosed therein to ‘subterranean formation[s] having low permeability,’ including nano-darcy shale formations.” Harwell Decl. ¶ 169.9 Dr. Harwell provides no additional scientific or technical basis for this conclusory restatement of the Petition’s assertion, and we find Dr. Harwell’s testimony on this issue entitled to little weight. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (denying institution and determining that testimony of a declarant that merely repeats, verbatim, conclusory assertions from a petition, without citing additional supporting evidence or providing technical reasoning to support the testimony, is entitled to little weight), cited at Prelim. Resp. 28–29 (“The Harwell Declaration repeats the same conclusory arguments presented in the petition without further evidence or 8 Page 18 of the Petition quotes column 1, lines 6–9 and column 1, lines 39–54 of Frenier. 9 Paragraphs 167–169 of the Harwell Declaration ostensibly address “Ground II: Claims 1–13 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Frenier alone and/or in combination with Reyes.” See Harwell Decl. pp. 40–41. In the discussion of “Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 13 are Anticipated by Frenier,” however, paragraphs 75–77 include the same or substantially similar statements from Dr. Harwell. Thus, the analysis would be the same even if Petitioner had cited paragraphs 75–77. explanation.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). This inadequate showing as to a requirement in limitations 1[b] and 1[c] reveals a lack of compelling merits.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 10. Petitioner “does not fully concur” with this definition of one of ordinary skill in the art but “is prepared to adopt” the definition for this proceeding. Id. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears consistent with the record in this proceeding, including the prior art. Prelim. Resp. 10; GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt, and apply below, the definition proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,944,843 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00242 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of the ’242 IPR because Petitioner did not justify a second petition raising a dispositive Sarantos/Shie motivation issue previously decided against it.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“significant because in IPR2022-01465, the Board addressed substantially the same issue. In that case, as here, Petitioner proposed to modify Sarantos’s wristwatch sensor to use the light shape changing material disclosed in Shie. Compare Pet. 10 (“It would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the light shape changing material of Shie in the window region 2226 (orange) between light source 2208 (green) of Sarantos’s wristwatch sensor and the user’s wrist tissue.”); with Ex. 2036, 139 (decision in IPR2022-01465 explaining “[Petitioner] asserts it would have been obvious ‘to use the light shape changing material of Shie in the wristwatch sensor of Sarantos in between LEDs 2208 and the user’s wrist tissue’”). Whether the POSA would have been motivated to make this modification is dispositive in this case. See Prelim. Resp. 38–41. In IPR2022-01465, on a fully developed record, the Board determined that Petitioner did not “explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use a light shape changing lens within the context of Sarantos’s sensor.” Ex. 2036, 143; see also id. at 146 (explaining that Dr. Anthony’s testimony “seeks to establish only that Shie’s cylindrical lens structures shape light, and does not explain why or how Shie’s cylindrical lens structures would achieve any of the three benefits identified in the Petition in the context of Sarantos’s sensor”). Thus, the Board determined that Petitioner had not established sufficient motivation to support a finding of obviousness. Id. at 145, 146. This prior decision weighs heavily against institution. Put simply, we find little reason to go forward with Petitioner’s second-ranked Petition where the Board in IPR2022-01465 previously decided an issue, in a Final Written Decision, against Petitioner that is case dispositive in this Petition.” slip op. at 13
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“that Petitioner did not “explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use a light shape changing lens within the context of Sarantos’s sensor.” Ex. 2036, 143; see also id. at 146 (explaining that Dr. Anthony’s testimony “seeks to establish only that Shie’s cylindrical lens structures shape light, and does not explain why or how Shie’s cylindrical lens structures would achieve any of the three benefits identified in the Petition in the context of Sarantos’s sensor”). Thus, the Board determined that Petitioner had not established sufficient motivation to support a finding of obviousness. Id. at 145, 146. This prior decision weighs heavily against institution. Put simply, we find little reason to go forward with Petitioner’s second-ranked Petition where the Board in IPR2022-01465 previously decided an issue, in a Final Written Decision, against Petitioner that is case dispositive in this Petition. We recognize that the record in this proceeding is not identical to that in IPR2022-01465 and that it is possible that Petitioner could adduce evidence in this proceeding that would address the deficiencies the Board identified in Petitioner’s showing. But on the present record, Petitioner relies on the same prior art and the same testifying expert to support its argument that it would have been obvious to make the same proposed modification to Sarantos. And, in its Notice of Ranking, Petitioner emphasizes the “strong similarities” between the claims in the patents at issue as a way of showing that going forward with a second petition in this case would not burden the Board or Patent Owner. Notice 4. Given that Petitioner has already met the reasonable likelihood standard for institution in the ’241 IPR, the possibility that Petitioner might be more successful litigating an issue on the second go-around than it was on the first does not present circumstances warranting institution of a second petition.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,687,743 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00293 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Bailey’s processing board generated the claimed SpO2 measurement values.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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 not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Thus, for reasons explained below, we deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’507 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The main difference between the parties’ definitions of the POSA appears to be that Patent Owner specifies that the POSA’s knowledge and experience may include optical sensors and that the POSA may have a degree emphasizing software. On the present record, we do not deem these differences material, particularly because the optical sensors and technologies at issue are those used in physiological monitoring technologies and both parties agree that the POSA would have a working knowledge of 11 physiological monitoring technologies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Prelim. Resp. 6. We find the additional specificity of Patent Owner’s definition to be helpful. In addition, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’507 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] 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)). We note that we would reach the same outcome under either definition of the POSA.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not identify any claim terms as needing formal construction. Pet. 3 (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Patent Owner asserts that “the claims have 12 their plain meaning and thus require no construction,” noting that this is the same position it took in the Delaware Litigation. Prelim. Resp. 12.11 We determine that no terms require express construction at this stage. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“4. Discussion We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s showing with respect to the claim requirements relating to SpO2 measurement values is deficient. In particular, Petitioner maps the “SpO2 measurement values” “generat[ed]” by the “processing board” to the voltage level signals sent from the microcontroller to the wireless transmitter and then from the wireless transmitter to the mobile device. Pet. 19; Ex. 1004, 47 (“The only data that was actually sent from the digital interface to the user interface [i.e., the mobile device] was the voltage level and its corresponding LED, which was sent over in a 2-bit array of data.”). And Petitioner maps “the SpO2 measurement values” “display[ed]” in a “display portion[]” of the mobile device to a displayed SpO2 percentage. Pet. 21 (relying on Figure 32 of Bailey (reproduced supra § II.D.1), an image of the user interface of Bailey’s mobile device displaying an SpO2 percentage but not a voltage); see also id. at 22 (“As shown in Figure 32 below, Bailey’s mobile device displays at least a SpO2 value and a heart rate (a plurality of physiological parameters comprising at least the SpO2 measurement values).”). Thus, the data generated by the microprocessor (a voltage level) is not the data displayed by the mobile device (an SpO2 percentage). Consistent with this, Bailey indicates that its “User Interface,” i.e., its mobile device, is the system component that calculates the SpO2 level. Ex. 1004, 50 (explaining, in a discussion of the “User Interface,” that blood oxygen saturation was calculated using a “peak detection algorithm”).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,736,507 - Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00173 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the prior-art combinations did not make the required determination for claims 1–4, 7–12, 14, 16–17, and 19.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “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.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenges in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not identify any deficiencies in Petitioner’s proposal, and we view the parties’ proposals as overlapping to a large extent. See Pet. 4–5; Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we view as consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’971 patent and the asserted prior art. None of our determinations in this Decision would have been different if we applied Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“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). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“We have frequently stated that the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” (citations omitted)). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, both parties contend that no claim construction is required for us to reach a decision on institution. Pet. 5; Prelim. Resp. 6–7. We agree, and apply the plain and ordinary meanings of the claim limitations before us.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“which requires that the route guidance unit output a message “when” the unit “determines” that two conditions are satisfied: (1) the vehicle has deviated from the route to a predetermined distance or more, and (2) the vehicle is traveling along a route after said first next waypoint. See Ex. 1001, claim 1. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combination of Khavakh or Lefebvre renders obvious the second aspect of the limitation—i.e., outputting a message when the “route guidance unit determines that the vehicle . . . is traveling along a route after said first next waypoint,” as required by claims 1 and 19. Prelim. Resp. 12. Petitioner’s assertions on this point have some support in Khavakh. For example, we agree with Petitioner in part that “Khavakh’s prompt would also be output” in the situation in Petitioner’s illustrated example, where a driver has missed a turn and deviates from a desired route after a first next waypoint. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–166). These assertions, however, fail to track the claim language, which does not merely require a system that outputs a message when a driver misses a required turn or otherwise deviates from a chosen path. Instead, the limitation requires, in pertinent part, outputting the message “when” a specific determination has been made by the system—that the vehicle “is traveling along a route after said first next waypoint.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. Petitioner fails to point to any disclosure in Khavakh (or Lefebvre) that makes this determination and outputs a message when it occurs. See Pet. 30–41. Based on our review of the current record, it appears that Khavakh outputs a message indicating a driver has deviated from a desired route regardless of whether the driver is traveling along a route before or after the first next waypoint. Because Khavakh’s system appears to output messages to the driver without making a separate determination as to the relationship of the driver to the first next waypoint (whether it is “after” that waypoint as the claim requires), Petitioner has not persuaded us that it is reasonably likely to prevail on this issue.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,649,971
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.