• Florida Food Products, LLC v. Kerry Group Services Int’L Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00006 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Voorde and Hara; the Board did not reach the remaining obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “the invention would have had: a master’s or doctorate degree in food science, biology, chemistry, or a similar field; or a bachelor’s degree in food science, biology, chemistry, or a similar field along with at least 2-3 years of experience in food preservatives generally or more specifically 2-3 years of experience in the chemistry associated with food preservation and nitrates/nitrites [and] would have known that the USDA regulated nitrites for curing meat and would have been able to find these USDA regulations affecting meat products. Pet. 23–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 48). Kerry’s recitation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is nearly identical. Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 43–44). To the extent the parties’ formulations of the level of skill differ, the differences do not appear to be material to any dispute between the parties or any issue of patentability that we must resolve. We determine that the level of ordinary skill the parties propose is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted art, and adopt that level for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Petition, FFP addressed the construction of only one claim phrase, but also submitted that the construction of that phrase does not affect our decision in this case. Pet. 24. Specifically, FFP asked us to adopt a construction that “clarifies that the nitrite results from the added organism reducing the plant nitrate.” Id. at 25. Kerry does not address this construction, and we agree with FFP that construction of that claim phrase has no effect on our decision herein. Thus, we need not adopt it. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Upon review, we do not believe it is proper to adopt a blanket approach that would assign weight to the entirety of Dr. Baldwin’s 12 In its Sur-Reply, Kerry raises for the first time that, under its definition of the level of skill in the art, Dr. Baldwin is not himself a person of ordinary skill and therefore is not allowed to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan, citing Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022). See Sur-Reply 15 n.1. To the extent that Kerry is seeking to disqualify Dr. Baldwin’s testimony in its entirety under Kyocera, we consider this to be a new argument that differs from Kerry’s initial argument that Dr. Baldwin’s testimony should be afforded little or no weight due to his lack of familiarity with the field of the ’304 patent. Because new arguments made for the first time in sur-reply are not permitted, we will only focus on Kerry’s initial challenge to the testimony of Dr. Baldwin. testimony, regardless of the subject of his particular opinions. It is clear that Dr. Baldwin has expertise in some areas of chemistry, while Dr. Milkowski’s experience is focused on other areas and emphasizes food chemistry. These differences in expertise may impact how we weigh the testimony of both witnesses, but that determination should be made in the context of a specific subject and based on the applicability of each witness’s background to the opinions. Therefore, we decline to adopt Kerry’s proposed approach of giving Dr. Baldwin’s testimony “little to no weight,” and instead will weigh the expertise of both witnesses in evaluating their testimony on specific areas of dispute, if necessary.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Upon review, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Voorde in the manner FFP suggests. Voorde explicitly discloses the advantages of heating the medium, and there is no disagreement that heating to 50–52°C would have resulted in at least some reduced microbial load, which is all that the claims require.13 Indeed, Voorde describes that as a result of heating to 50–52°C, its medium is “(partially) sterilized.” Ex. 1003, 7. Kerry’s argument that Voorde does not disclose starting with a “sterile medium” (PO Resp. 25) is unavailing; as discussed above, we do not interpret anything in claim 1 or the ’304 patent 13 At oral argument, Kerry raised for the first time a claim construction argument that “heat treating,” as recited in the claims, requires heating to a level in excess of what is required in Voorde, and a person of ordinary skill would have understood the term to refer to sterilization. Tr. 33:4–34:19, 55:3–9. We decline to address this late-arising argument fully, but note that we find that the ’304 patent does not support such a limited interpretation of the term “heat treating.” to require a sterile medium, and Kerry does not direct us to anything in the record that would persuade us otherwise.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,071,304 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,071,304
• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2023 · IPR2021-01449 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 5 is unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 1–4 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’174 patent and the prior art of record. We note, however, that neither party contends that any issue in this case turns on the differences between the parties’ definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “rotation vector” is consistent with the ’174 patent’s usage of the term “rotation vector” (or “vector of rotation”). See Ex. 1001, 1:54–2:11. Dr. Kanellakopoulos’s opinion supports that “rotation vector” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to describe the motion of a body that is rotating around a point. As to the other aspects of Patent Owner’s proposed construction, describing the characteristics of magnitude and direction, we determine that those attributes are not necessary to interpreting how a skilled artisan would understand “rotation vector” in light of the claim language and specification. See Tr. 47:26–48:7 (in Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “rotation vector,” “the magnitude requirement is not particularly important”). We address the parties’ arguments as to differences between a rotation vector and angular momentum vector in Section II.D.2 below, because they underlie Petitioner’s challenges involving Kleppner.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Having considered the parties’ positions as to construction of the term “movement vector” and applicability of the definition of “movement vector” set forth in the ’174 patent specification (Ex. 1001, 2:29–31), we construe the term “movement vector” to mean “a vector derived from the cross product of the centrifugal force vector and the rotation vector.” We adopt the definition set forth in the ’174 specification because we determine patentee acted as its own lexicographer. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”). We agree with Petitioner that the words “while a vehicle is turning” would be superfluous in the construction, because the step of “detecting a movement vector during the turn” already recites that the vehicle is turning. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”)” slip op. at 16

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

    “We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction because it improperly reads into claim 5 a requirement that the specification and claim language do not support. The specification passages relied on by Patent Owner do not expressly state that a vehicle independent state must be determined while the device is inside a vehicle, and contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, they also do not necessarily imply that. For example, the descriptions of “vehicle independent movement” and “vehicle independent event” in the specification (see Ex. 1001, 1:16, 42) refer to “phone falling to the ground.” “Falling to the ground” implies that the phone may be outside a vehicle, not inside. Further, the specification’s reference to detecting a vehicle dependent state “while also” recognizing a vehicle independent event does not necessarily imply that the vehicle dependent state and vehicle independent event are being detected simultaneously, as Patent Owner argues. In the language of claim 5, a “vehicle independent state” is recited in the determining step (step c), and the requirement that the portable device is located “inside a vehicle” relates to creation of an operation indicator, as part of the detecting step (step b). Patent Owner does not dispute this, and agrees that a portable device “not in the vehicle” can satisfy the determining step (step c). Tr. 73:5–8. Patent Owner, however, argues step c’s recitation that a “vehicle independent state” is based on step b’s “predetermined criteria” creates a link between “vehicle independent state” and step b, and thus an “express requirement” in step c that the device is located inside the vehicle. See Tr. 73:8–26, 76:1–3. We decline to read this requirement into the claim language. Although the claim language states that determining a “vehicle independent state” is based on “predetermined criteria,” and step b describes comparing “predetermined criteria” to an “operation indicator” that is created when the device is inside a vehicle, it does not limit the step of determining a vehicle independent state to a time when the portable device is inside a vehicle. Accordingly, we construe “vehicle independent state” to mean a state triggered when the portable device is moved independently of the movement of the vehicle.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,846,174 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,846,174
• Nanofiber Solutions, LLC v. Acera Surgical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01016 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 as anticipated by Johnson, and claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Johnson and Johnson–Liu, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of filing the ‘228 Patent would have been a person having a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, for example in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering, with undergraduate research experience, coupled with at least three years of industry experience, that linked the fabrication of fibrous polymeric materials to performance requirements for scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–116). In response, Patent Owner notes that all challenged claims recite electrospun fibers but that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill “requires (1) no coursework, training or experience with electrospinning and (2) improperly focuses on scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38–39). But Patent Owner then concedes that this “difference is immaterial to deciding the issues raised by the Petition.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 9

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

    “construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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))). The parties agree that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their “plain and ordinary meaning” and that no express claim construction is necessary to address Petitioner’s challenges. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Upon review, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has improperly mixed and matched disclosures from Johnson to arrive at an anticipatory reference. Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner primarily relies on Example 1 as evidence for the method by which its scaffold is made. But the disclosure found in paragraph 98 is not a “distinct” teaching of the type described in Net MoneyIN; rather, it is a general description of the structures that may be created by Johnson’s method: “A scaffold may comprise any number of layers, including about 1 layer, about 2 layers, about 3 layers, about 4 layers, about 5 layers, and so on.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 98. Patent Owner has not directed us to anything in the disclosure of Johnson that indicates that this is a “distinct” teaching or embodiment, instead of a general description of the types of scaffolds that Johnson encompasses. We see no reason why the general disclosures regarding Johnson’s scaffolds should be limited to specific embodiments, or precluded from applying to the method of Example 1.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are unconvinced by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. While we recognize that the range of claim 3 is very broad, and it is possible that scaffolds having fiber diameters as set forth in Johnson could have a mean pore size falling within the range, inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. Twi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the process of Example 1 to necessarily result in the claimed mean pore size. We are also persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Boland 2005’s disclosure of a fiber diameter similar to Johnson’s that nevertheless falls outside the claimed mean pore size range. We note that Petitioner never addresses Boland 2005 in its Reply. 4. Conclusion as to Anticipation For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 are anticipated by Johnson, but has failed to meet its burden as to claim 3.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,632,228 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,632,228
• Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2022 · IPR2021-00662 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamazaki, Schubert, and Tadatomo; the Board did not reach the other asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been knowledgeable regarding conventional designs and fabrication techniques pertaining to LEDs, including LED package designs, and would have had at least 2 years of experience in LED design and fabrication as well as at least a master’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., chemical engineering, materials engineering, or electrical engineering), or alternatively would have an equivalent combination of advanced education and practical experience.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposal and find it reasonable and consistent with the prior art, and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Third, and most significantly, Petitioner points to Shimizu, a patent filed in 1999, as repeatedly referring to phosphor as a garnet-based fluorescent material. Reply 3 (citing Pet. 27; Ex. 1013, 10:16–13:50). We agree that Shimizu appears to use the two terms interchangeably. For example, Shimizu states that “[t]he phosphor is specifically garnet fluorescent material” and “the fluorescent material is preferably yttrium- aluminum-garnet fluorescent material (YAG phosphor) activated with cerium.” Ex. 1013, 10:17–30. Patent Owner does not dispute this reading of Shimizu, but argues instead that it is “impermissible to rely on an entirely different reference” in a Reply. See Sur-Reply 4–5 (citing Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). For the same reasons discussed above, we do not agree that Petitioner’s use of Shimizu is improper, but is instead a proper response to Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Yamazaki to disclose phosphor. Ariosa, relied upon by Patent Owner, confirms that the Board should consider an exhibit “for what it show[s] about the background knowledge that a skilled artisan would have possessed.” Ariosa, 805 F.3d at 1365 (“The Board’s language on its face supports Ariosa’s interpretation of what the Board meant—that the Board was declining to consider Exhibit 1010, even as evidence of the background understanding of skilled artisans as of January 2010, simply because the brochure had not been identified at the petition stage as one of the pieces of prior art defining a combination for obviousness. If that is what the Board meant, the Board erred. Art can legitimately serve to document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art identified as producing obviousness.”). The Petition relies on Shimizu to show such background understanding. Pet. 27. Specifically, the Petition states that conventional LEDs “were made using the III-nitride material system, with semiconductor layers formed on sapphire substrates and combined with YAG phosphors to efficiently generate white light output.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 10:30–11:35). Thus, Shimizu is properly objective evidence supporting a finding that at least as early as 1999, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used the terms “phosphor” and “fluorescent material” interchangeably. Moreover, Dr. Schubert’s textbook published in 2018 explicitly references Shimizu. Ex. 1039, 3-4. In this context, we find that Dr. Schubert’s textbook and testimony indicate that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the relevant time, would have understood the terms to be interchangeable.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Based on the complete record, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found the sapphire growth substrate obvious in light of Yamazaki’s disclosure. Petitioner cites Schubert to show an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge about conventional blue LEDs as disclosed in Yamazaki, i.e., that “conventional blue LEDs were III-nitride-based LEDs that commonly included sapphire growth substrates.” See Pet. 71–72, 76–77; Ex. 1007 ¶ 27 (stating the disclosed light-emitting chip “is of a publicly known structure”); Ex. 1008, 166 (discussing “commonly used sapphire and SiC substrates”). We credit Dr. Dupuis’ testimony that is consistent with the prior art of record. Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 238, 248–251 (citing Ex. 1008, 166); Ex. 1007 ¶ 27; Ex. 1009, 1:10–17, 4:61–67; Ex. 1012, 243; Ex. 2013, 10:30–11:35. We are not persuaded otherwise by the deposition testimony of Dr. Dupuis pointed to by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 2016, 53:7– 12). This testimony confirms that Schubert does not explicitly discuss whether the sapphire growth substrate is included in an LED package. Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 53:7–12). However, Patent Owner does not dispute that sapphire growth substrates were commonly used (as confirmed by Schubert) or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected a blue LED to include a sapphire growth substrate. See PO Resp. 42–43 (stating only that sapphire is one among several materials that could be used as a growth substrate); Sur-Reply 9–10 (same). Petitioner is not required to show that the proposed combination would have been preferred over other alternatives. Infineum USA L.P. v. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC, No. 2020-1333, 2022 WL 3147683, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2022) (“We have rejected the notion that a patent challenger seeking to demonstrate obviousness must prove that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select one prior art disclosure over another.”); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[O]ur case law does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.”). Instead, the question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure of Yamazaki, in light of the disclosure in Schubert, to teach or suggest the sapphire growth substrate limitation. As discussed above, persuasive evidence in the record establishes that this is true.” slip op. at 38

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

    “offered to show that the ’213 patent solved a long-felt, but unresolved need in the field and the merits of the challenged claims. See PO Resp. 67–68. First, Patent Owner has not shown a presumption of nexus because none of the cited evidence involves any particular product. Second, Patent Owner 22 Exhibit 2111 is a redacted version of Exhibit 2105. has not established that the any long-felt need resulted directly from the unique characteristics of the claimed subject matter. Other than a general statement that the technology addressed by the ’213 patent is a continuation of Dr. Nakamura’s prize-winning work (see Ex. 2112 ¶ 231), we see no evidence in the record that the subject matter recited by claims 1 and 2 of the ’213 patent, itself, solved the need for a more efficient LED without a heat sink or mirrors. See PO Resp. 65–66; Sur-Reply 23–24.” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 10,644,213 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,644,213
• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sysmex Corporation And Sysmex America, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01503 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Nagai and Jagtiani; the priority applications lack written-description support for the claimed electrical detection and cell-counting combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner’s definition was consistent with the disclosure of the ’351 patent and the scope and content of the asserted prior art to the extent that Petitioner’s definition requires familiarity with the design and operation of automated hematology analyzers available in the market. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:45–61, 15:52– 58). We also determined that Petitioner’s proposal was more reasonable than Patent Owner’s with respect to the duration of a POSA’s practical experience, whether such practical experience is in addition to or possibly as experience could be merely using hardware and/or software for an analyzer, as opposed to developing such hardware and/or software. Id. at 8–9. Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding, and we find that they do not. Nonetheless, on the full record now before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision, modified to state that a higher level of experience can compensate for less technical education, is supported by the ’351 patent, the prior art of record, and the opinions of Mr. Roche and Dr. Robinson (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for technical education). Thus, we find that a POSA would have had at least a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in biologic science, biomedical engineering, and/or electrical engineering or a related field and at least five years of experience in developing hardware and/or software for hematology analyzers, and would have been familiar with the design and operation of hematology analyzers available in the market. We also find that less technical education may be compensated by a higher level of experience, or vice versa.” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a controller programmed to,” “optical detector,” “electrical detector,” and “mono-nucleated cells and poly-nucleated cells” as recited in claim 7, and “total count of nucleated cells” as recited in claims 8 and 13. Pet. 22–29. Patent Owner responds that “[t]he District Court issued an opinion regarding claim construction on April 6, 2021,” and, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner applies the District Court’s constructions.” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner also specifically addresses the terms “controller programmed to” and “electrical detector.” Id. at 13–14. Petitioner replies that its proposed claim constructions are consistent with the District Court’s constructions. Pet. Reply 4–5. At the oral hearing, the parties confirmed that they do not dispute the District Court’s claim constructions. See Tr. 16 (Petitioner’s counsel stating that “Petitioner would request that this Board adopt these same [District Court] constructions in this IPR”), 34 (Patent Owner’s counsel agreeing that “neither side has objected to the court’s claim construction”). Based on the parties’ apparent agreement, and considering the record before us and the Report and Recommendation from the District Court (Ex. 2065), we agree with and adopt the District Court’s claim constructions. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning the claim in a civil action . . . that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). Accordingly, we construe the terms “controller programmed to,” “electrical detector,” and “optical detector” as set forth below. slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “that Petitioner has established that the priority applications do not provide adequate written description support for the challenged claims. More specifically, we find that the priority applications do not reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventors were in possession of a sample analyzer that both (1) uses an electrical detector to electrically sense cells in a body fluid measurement sample, and (2) from the analysis of the cells sensed by the electrical detector, counts the number of mono-nucleated cells and poly-nucleated cells in the body fluid measurement sample as required by claim 7.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Based on our review of the record, we determine that Petitioner has established that a POSA would have had reason to combine the teachings of Nagai and Jagtiani to achieve the claimed subject matter. Nagai describes an electrical detector (RBC/PLT detection unit 42) that “is capable of measuring the number of red blood cells and platelets by a sheath flow-DC detection method.” Ex. 1044, 6:58–63, Fig. 5. Nagai also describes WBC detection unit 41 that produces a DIFF scattergram that, in the body fluid measuring mode, is analyzed in order to classify the white blood cells into two subclasses, namely, mono-nucleated cells and poly-nucleated cells. Id. at 5:56–58, 12:27–36. Nagai teaches that WBC detection unit 41 is “configured as an optical detection unit” that performs white blood cell classification in the body fluid measurement mode using a combination of electrical resistance and absorbed light. Id. at 5:56–58, 15:52–16:6. Jagtiani teaches a channel sensor that can detect impedance to differentiate between different types of cells in a biological sample, including differentiating between red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 21, 25; see also id. ¶ 187 (“The channel sensor is based on impedance sensing using the Coulter principle.”). Jagtiani teaches the sensor can be configured to differentiate between and count the number of eosinophils, basophils, neutrophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes in the biological sample. Id. ¶ 25; see also id. ¶ 121 (“In some embodiments, the cell count can include a white blood differential, and can include a count of basophils, a count of eosinophils, a count of lymphocytes, a count of neutrophils, and/or a count of monocytes.”). Jagtiani further teaches that “[s]uch biological samples can include, for example, blood, serum, saliva, sweat, tears, urine, or any other biological sample or derivative suspended in a fluid.” Id. ¶ 119. In light of these teachings in Nagai and Jagtiani, we credit Mr. Roche’s testimony that Jagtiani demonstrates a known technique of detecting poly-nucleated and mono-nucleated white blood cells using an electrical detector. A POSA at the time of the invention would have been led to modify Nagai with the teaching of Jagtiani in the manner claimed to allow the body fluid measurement of Nagai to differentiate poly-nucleated and mono-nucleated blood cells (instead of measuring red blood cells alone). Such a motivation is found, for example, in Petitioner’s DxH system, which discloses use of an electrical detector in both a blood measuring mode and a fluid measuring mode. Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 30, 31. In the DxH system, use of an electrical detector in both the blood measuring mode and body fluid measuring mode allows identification of total number of cells in measured body fluid.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,401,351 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,401,351
• Sealed Air Corporation v. Ranpak Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01249 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Kirkpatrick; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner fails to cite any authority to support its argument that we should, in effect, disregard Mr. Klass’ testimony as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because he is not a person of ordinary skill in what Patent Owner contends is the relevant field. See PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. Patent Owner’s counsel similarly was unable to identify any such authority at the hearing. Tr. 42:9–15. Further, Mr. Klass’ testimony was not that he is not a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather that his opinions set forth in his earlier declaration would not be different under the level of ordinary skill as defined by Mr. May. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 4–5. On this record, we find Mr. Klass’ testimony well-supported as it pertains to relevant issues and see no reason to summarily disregard it. See Exs. 1002, 1028. Complete overlap between a witness’ technical qualifications in the field of the invention is not necessary for the witness’ testimony to be admissible. See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“CTPG”)5 at 34 (“There is . . . no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.”). Nor must they themselves be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but only that they are “qualified in the pertinent art.” CTPG at 34 (citing Sundance, Inc. v. DelMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 136364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Mr. Klass’ education includes a minor in Pulp & Paper Technology (Ex. 1006) and his lengthy experience in the pulp and paper industry includes work—as a process engineer—involving splicing and corrugators (Ex. 1002 ¶ 8). Mr. Klass has the “knowledge, skill, experience, training, [and] education” of a “specialized” nature that is likely to “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Accordingly, we find Mr. Klass has sufficient relevant technical expertise to consider and weigh his testimony as we have in this decision. See SEB S.A., 594 F.3d at 1373.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have included those with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or paper engineering with at least a year’s experience relating to producing cushioning materials, dunnage pads, and other protective packaging. As admitted by Patent Owner, production of such materials using kraft paper stock was known. PO Resp. 14. As to the use of double-sided adhesive, we do not agree with Patent Owner that it was unknown to the person of ordinary skill in the art because using double-sided tape to join rolls of sheet stock was known in the wider field of paper processing and we find that field reasonably includes producing paper cushioning products, and that such related knowledge reasonably would also have been within the knowledge of a skilled artisan in the “cushioning conversion machine” field as the same or similar paper cushioning products are produced. Moreover, regardless of whether double-sided tape was used in what Patent Owner contends is the “cushioning conversion machine” field, Mr. May’s testimony is limited to it not being used in that field, not that double-sided tape itself was not known to one of ordinary skill in the art in the field. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–57. It reasonably follows that a person having knowledge of double-sided tape would also have knowledge of joining together sheets of paper or other stock using double-sided tape. Further, to the extent that Patent Owner and Mr. May rely on “cushioning conversion machines” differing from paper processing machines that produce paper cushioning products, on this record, there is insufficient evidence of a meaningful difference in their complexity, size, or operation. For example, Patent Owner relies heavily on the paper processing machines including machinery to allow splicing on the fly, but the prior art also teaches that non-continuous roll-to-roll splicing can be used. See Ex. 1010, 1:13–16 (disclosing that a splicing tape system “is applicable both to systems in which the splice is made on the fly and to systems in which the splice is made while the running web is stationary”); Ex.1017, 1:15–19 (disclosing that “[t]he splicing operation can be performed in a static or a dynamic mode.”). As to size, similarly, Patent Owner relies on the machinery for paper making or producing corrugated cardboard being larger than “cushioning conversion machines,” but there is no clear distinction between the two as to size, as discussed below. Also, there is no evidence that paper processing machines forming paper cushioning products from paper itself do not do so in the same general manner as the ’096 patent. Accordingly, finding no meaningful distinction to “cushioning conversion machines,” we discern no meaningful difference in the knowledge of the skilled artisan as it relates to the challenged claims. Moreover, to the extent that there would be a narrower “cushioning conversion machine” field that did not include the use of double-sided tape, as Patent Owner contends, there would be no difference in the outcome of this case. As to obviousness, the scope of analogous prior art is not limited to the field of inventor’s endeavor, but also includes references that are “still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As discussed below, we find Kirkpatrick reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” slip op. at 12

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

    “On this record, we determine that the preamble’s recitation of “sheet stock material for use in a cushioning conversion machine” is a statement of intended use and does not constitute a limitation. In doing so, we must construe the meaning of the term “cushioning conversion machine.” In construing “cushioning conversion machine,” we note there is no guidance elsewhere in the remaining claim language as to its meaning, including in other claims, and so turn to the specification of the ’096 patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13, 1315. The ’096 patent states that “[c]ushioning conversion machines convert [paper] sheet stock material . . . into a cushioning dunnage product.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–25 (Background). The ’096 patent also identifies its “invention [as] relat[ing] to machines for converting sheet stock material into a dunnage product.” Id. at 1:15–16 (Field of the Invention). Figures 1 and 2 are identified as top plan and side elevational views of a cushioning conversion machine. Id. at 3:57–63. The ’096 patent discloses that the “operation of the [cushioning] conversion machine 10 may be controlled by a controller, also in a well-known manner” (emphasis added). Id. at 6:42–44. The ’096 patent provides no disclosure as to the size of the cushioning conversion machine or the sheet stock material that it converts into cushioning dunnage product. See Ex. 1001.” slip op. at 20

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

    “On this record, Mr. May’s testimony of what “cushioning conversion machine” means in the field of paper dunnage machines fails to bear the weight required to limit the term as Patent Owner proposes. The ’096 patent identifies “cushioning conversion machines” to be machines that “convert sheet stock material . . . into a cushioning dunnage product.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–25 (Background). This is in effect the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves identifying a machine that converts feedstock into cushioning. Further, we find it consistent with the ’096 patent as a whole. Mr. May’s contrary testimony, as discussed above, lacks sufficient evidentiary basis to support Patent Owner’s contended construction over the plain and ordinary meaning. In effect, the basis for Mr. May’s testimony is limited to a showing that the meaning of the term encompasses a machine such as shown in the ’096 patent’s Figure 1 and 2. Mr. May’s testimony as to the PadPak machine being a “popular cushioning conversion machine[]” only goes to establishing that “cushioning conversion machine” encompasses similar machines, not that the term would be understood to be limited to the PadPak machine. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65–66. As to “cushioning conversion machines” being stop/start machines, the ’096 patent’s states that “the conversion machine 10 may be controlled by a controller” (emphasis 7 Elsewhere Patent Owner cites a number of its patents for using the term “cushioning conversion machine,” but this only supports that Patent Owner uses the term. See PO Resp. 27. added), not that it must be. Ex. 1001, 6:42–43. As to size, as discussed above, the ’096 patent provides no limitation as to the size of the apparatus or the sheet stock material. Petitioner highlights that another of Patent Owner’s patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,200,251 B1 (Ex. 1026, “the ’251 patent”), discloses “that in a ‘preferred cushioning conversion machine, the stock supply assembly is adapted to supply stock material which is between 25 to 35 inches wide’” (emphasis added). Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1026, 2:56–59). Petitioner also highlights that the ’251 patent was filed before the ’096 patent’s priority date and names the ’096 patent’s inventor among its inventors. Id.; compare Ex. 1026, codes (22), (75), with Ex. 1001, codes (22), (75). Such disclosure of a preferred embodiment in this circumstance is reasonable evidence that a skilled artisan would understand that a “cushioning conversion machine” included those “adapted to supply stock material . . . between 25 and 35 inches wide,” but not that such machines were limited to using such widths. The relevance of this is that the sheet stock material used is not manifestly distinct from the sheet stock material used for corrugators, ranging from 35 to 110 inches in width, where Patent Owner contends corrugators are distinct from “cushioning conversion machines.” See Ex. 2003, 95:22–96:6 (Mr. Klass testifying that the “width of commercial corrugators could be anywhere from 35 to 110 inches.”); PO Resp. 33–34 (relying on Mr. Klass’ testimony). Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence of a clear distinction in weight. Patent Owner and Mr. May rely on Mr. Klass’ testimony as to the weight of paper rolls for corrugators, focusing solely on testimony as to the weight of large rolls and ignoring that the testimony also set forth that “[s]ome corrugators use smaller rolls.” PO Resp. 34; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–79; Pet. Reply 14–15; see also Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 21–22 (Mr. Klass’ testimony that “web feed rolls at the lower end of that range would be especially well suited for use in a cushioning conversion machine, even under [Patent Owner’s] narrow definition of such a machine” and that “my testimony certainly was not that Kirkpatrick’s web feed rolls would weigh tons.”). In sum, on this record, we determine that “cushioning conversion” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,756,096 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,756,096
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01214 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and skilled-artisan knowledge; the contingent motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 9–16.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeNew argument disregardedNew argument consideredGranted in part

    “regarding (1) the motivation to combine Kaun with Kobayashi based on dendrite formation (id. at 2–4), (2) additional motivations to modify Kaun with Kobayashi (id. at 4–6), (3) a reasonable expectation of success relating to Kaun’s central fastener (id. at 6–7), and (4) a reasonable expectation of success regarding Kobayashi’s modified electrode assembly (id. at 7–9). Because we do not reach Petitioner’s challenge based on the combination of Kaun and Kobayashi, as discussed below, we similarly need not reach Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Mr. Gardner’s opinions as they relate to the Kaun/Kobayashi combination. Accordingly, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude these purportedly new opinions as moot. We address Patent Owner’s remaining concerns, relating to Mr. Gardner’s allegedly new testimony regarding Kobayashi, below.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’913 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20–21 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party asserts that our decision depends on that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 8 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply; MTA Opp. 1–2 (“Regardless of which definition is used, however, Patent Owner’s Substitute Claims are still not patentable.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “In their briefing, the parties dispute the meaning of three claim terms or phrases—(1) “insulating means”, (2) “connected to one another by at least one flat separator,” and (3) “button cell.” See Pet. 17–21; PO Resp. 9–12. We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions.6 In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:21–24 (explaining that 6 The parties disagree as to what the newly added phrase “the cup casing include[ing] a first part proximal to the flat bottom area and a second part disposed in the overlapping area, the first part of the casing being disposed radially inward with respect to the second part” means. See generally MTA Opp.; MTA Reply; MTA Sur-reply. Neither party proposes an express construction for this phrase. Id. We address the interpretation of this phrase below and only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute raised by the parties’ substantive arguments. limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 13

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

    “On this issue, we agree with Petitioner. Mr. Gardner explains that the skilled artisan “would further recognize that the output conductor can be comprised of various materials . . . . which could be metal or various materials . . . . [and] the shape of the output conductor is not particularly limited.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 322. Mr. Gardner further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize, not only that metal foil conductors could be inserted into these grooves without difficulty, but also that the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors.” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53, 70. We recognize Patent Owner’s argument that numerous factors must be considered and that conventional battery design does not necessarily translate to button cell designs (PO Resp 25–26), but as Mr. Gardner testifies, “this may be true in some cases, [but] the lessons and advantages of using techniques from conventional battery design and applying it to button cell would be obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶ 103. He continues to explain that “[n]aturally, such transposition of techniques would require some modification and adjustments. . . . [and that] each of these adjustments, . . . would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. ¶ 104 (describing, for example, “reducing the thickness of the conductor plates of Kobayashi”). We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. Moreover, Patent Owner does not allege that any proposed modification would be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art or explain how any of the “constraints unique to . . . button cell design” (PO Resp. 25) are relevant to the proposed substitution of a metal foil for a metal terminal electrode plate. See generally id.; Sur-reply. Finally, Patent Owner argues that “[r]eliance upon the general knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to provide a missing element in a combination of references is an exception rather than the rule” and “is particularly true where the proposed modification goes to the essence of the claims.” PO Resp. 26. Patent Owner states that “Petitioners have provided no more than ‘conclusory statements and unspecified expert testimony’ to supply a metal foil that is admittedly missing from Kobayashi, and is not shown in any other button cell art.” Id. at 27. We disagree. As the Federal Circuit has explained ‘common sense and common knowledge have their proper place in the obviousness inquiry,’ (a) invoking ‘common sense . . . to supply a limitation that was admittedly missing from the prior art’ should generally only be done when the [missing] limitation in question [is] unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward;’ and (b) references to common sense ‘cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support’ Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020)(quoting Arendi S.A.R.L v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361–1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Here, Petitioner proposes to substitute a metal foil for a metal terminal electrode plate to provide contact with the inner surface of the button cell housing. Ex. 1006 ¶ 34. As detailed above, Petitioner and Mr. Gardner direct our attention to the prior art of record which suggests use of foil within small battery cells to provide electrical contact was well-known and explains why the skilled artisan would have reduced the thickness of the terminal electrode plate to maximize the available space for active electrode components. Accordingly, unlike the expert in Arendi, Petitioner here provides more than “conclusory statements and unspecific expert testimony.” Arendi, 832 F.3d at 1366.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,799,913 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,799,913
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01212 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Kaun; the contingent motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 14–25.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “that “Kaun discloses that the cell is sealed ‘by a ‘U’ shaped insulator/gasket 32 . . . to seal the cell without pressure-loading,’” and therefore, venting via a pressure release seal is not required. Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 120). In an alternate embodiment, Kaun provides a means to relieve gas pressure “via the peripheral gasket which can reseal after an event.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 91. As Petitioner explains, “Kaun discloses that it is sealed, but upon the application of certain conditions, the internal pressure of gases within the cell can cause gases to vent. During such events, Kaun discloses ‘[t]he specified limit for internal pressure is handled by release via the peripheral gasket which can reseal after an event.’” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 37–39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 91, 101). Thus, while Kaun discloses venting to prevent pressure build up, Kaun “is otherwise sealed at all times during functioning.” Id. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 38–39; Ex. 1005 ¶ 101). Neither the ’835 patent nor Patent Owner’s own proposed construction of “closed without being beaded over” requires closure at all times. Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “[i]f a battery which, upon application of significant internal pressure, would be considered not ‘closed’ at other times, th[e]n almost no battery could be considered closed. [Because] [a]ny battery, when subjected to certain pressures, would leak or burst.” Ex. 1041 ¶ 39. We credit Mr. Gardner’s undisputed testimony in this regard. Mr. Gardner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kaun is closed.” Id. Dr. Peckerar similarly testifies that Kaun shows a housing that is closed without being beaded over. Ex. 1034, 131:4–11; 237:19–238:22 (describing Kaun as “closed during normal operation”). Accordingly, the record evidence supports Petitioner’s assertion that the combination of Kobayashi and Kaun suggests a button cell that is closed without being beaded over.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions.8 In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in 8 The parties disagree as to what the newly added phrase “the cup casing include[ing] a first part proximal to the flat bottom area and a second part disposed in the overlapping area, the first part of the casing being disposed radially inward with respect to the second part” means. See generally MTA Opp.; MTA Reply; MTA Sur-reply. Neither party proposes an express construction for this phrase. Id. We address the interpretation of this phrase below and only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute raised by the parties’ substantive arguments. claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:20–24 (explaining that limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, Patent Owner identifies three claimed features—i.e., the jelly- roll configuration, the insulating layer, and a housing closed without being beaded over—as responsible for the improved performance of the VARTA CoinPower® button cell batteries. Id. However, Patent Owner’s declarants testify further and explain that it is the combination of the three identified features, in addition to a flat foil conductor resting flat between the electrode top and housing and welding the foil conductor from outside the housing, that are responsible for improved performance. In particular, Mr. Miehlich, employed in VARTA’s marketing and sales department, testifies that the new cell design, which “provided unprecedented increases in performance, including in energy density, charge capacity, and cycling stability,” consisted of a “jelly roll electrode coil packed tightly into an uncrimped, button-like housing. The electrode coil was protected against short-circuiting by [an] insulating means, and was connected to the cell terminals by a flexible flat foil conductors resting flat between the electrode top and housing, and welded to the housing components from the outside. These features are all found in the claims of the VARTA patents here under review. Ex. 2045 ¶¶ 15–16. And, Dr. Lindner, one of the named inventors of the ’835 patent, testifies that the complex issues we faced were how to safely pack the required amount of electrode material into the very small “button”-sized housing and protect it against short circuits; how to connect the “jelly roll” electrode to the terminals in such a confined space without itself consuming much volume, and how to seal the top and bottom of the cell housing, all while accommodating the expansion and contraction of the electrode winding and the resulting mechanical forces. Ex. 2046 ¶ 33. According to Dr. Linder, the jelly-roll configuration with an insulator, flexible foil output conductors, sealing the cell without crimping, and welding the foil conductors from outside the housing each contributed to the improved battery performance. Id. ¶¶ 34–43. Thus, it is the combination of five elements—not the three claimed in the ’835 patent—that are purportedly responsible for the “vastly increased performance characteristics” of the CoinPower® products. Id. ¶ 43; see also id. ¶ 45 (noting that “various aspects of our invention are covered by 10 issued patents, including the four United States patents here under review” (emphasis added)); Tr. 84:24–85:10 (explaining that welding, for example, is “also part of the success”). Like the patent owner in Fox Factory, “[i]n light of the patentee’s own assertions about the significance of the unclaimed features, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that these features are insignificant.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d 1375. As a result, the patent claims are not coextensive with the CoinPower® products because those products include “‘critical’ unclaimed feature[s] that [are] claimed by a different patent and materially impacts the product’s functionality.” Id.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,153,835 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,153,835
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01211 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi; substitute claims 14–25 are allowed because the cited combinations do not teach the claimed cup casing structure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’581 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, of about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 6 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We are not persuaded that the identified portions of Mr. Gardner’s Supplemental Declaration are improper. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute known metal foils for the metal conductor plates of Kobayashi in order to reduce the size of inactive materials and improve performance. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 323). In its Response, Patent Owner argued, among other things, that the metal foil lacks the requisite rigidity to support the remaining components of the winding axis core (PO Resp. 22–27, 31), and that because metal connecting plates 4a and 5b are positioned within recesses of insulating plates 8 and 9, replacing the metal connecting plates with metal foils would result in an unreliable connection because the metal foil would become embedded within the grooves of the insulating plates (id. at 28, 31). Mr. Gardner’s supplemental testimony specifically addresses Dr. Peckerar’s and Patent Owner’s concerns that metal foils would be unsuitable in Kobayashi due to their flexibility and thickness as compared to the insulating plates. Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53 (“the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors”), 70, 71 (explaining that it is the winding core that provides structure not the output conductor plates), 81, 86 (explaining that the person of ordinary skill in the art could either adjust the size of the output conductors or the depth of the cavities themselves), 87. Therefore, Mr. Gardner’s testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood how to account for the technical challenges Patent Owner identified properly responds to arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner Response. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Mr. Gardner’s testimony regarding Kobayashi’s modified electrode assembly.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner adequately shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kobayashi to include metal foils in place of its terminal electrode plates. Petitioner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that metal foil may be used in batteries because the use of metal foil as a conductor is common in the art. Pet. 31, 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256, 323). Petitioner directs our attention to Kobayashi which details use of metal foil for conducting elements. Id. at 39; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 21, 26, 27 (describing metal foil electrodes). Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “reducing the thickness of the output conductors has the effect of reducing the ratio of inactive to active components within the cell, which improves energy density . . . . [and is] a well-known goal in the art.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 323. Mr. Gardner further opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the output conductors of Kobayashi in order to increase energy density within the cell” and “to use metal foils as the output conductors, as this furthers the well-known goal in the art of reducing the size of internal battery components.” Id. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Gardner relies on teachings related to conventional battery design—not button cell batteries—and that he discusses considerations “relating to thickness of the electrodes, not of output conductors.” PO Resp. 19–20. But, Mr. Gardner’s testimony similarly relies on passages directed to “basic concepts” of battery operations and, as a whole, focuses on the concept that reducing the thickness of the terminal electrode plates would “maximize the space available inside the cell for active components,” thereby increasing electrode density and improving battery performance. Ex. 1003 ¶ 323 (citing Ex. 1009, 35). According to Mr. Gardner, “these adjustments would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 104. We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. “Moreover, if 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 that person’s skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner adequately shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kobayashi to include metal foils in place of its terminal electrode plates. Petitioner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that metal foil may be used in batteries because the use of metal foil as a conductor is common in the art. Pet. 31, 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256, 323). Petitioner directs our attention to Kobayashi which details use of metal foil for conducting elements. Id. at 39; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 21, 26, 27 (describing metal foil electrodes). Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “reducing the thickness of the output conductors has the effect of reducing the ratio of inactive to active components within the cell, which improves energy density . . . . [and is] a well-known goal in the art.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 323. Mr. Gardner further opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the output conductors of Kobayashi in order to increase energy density within the cell” and “to use metal foils as the output conductors, as this furthers the well-known goal in the art of reducing the size of internal battery components.” Id. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Gardner relies on teachings related to conventional battery design—not button cell batteries—and that he discusses considerations “relating to thickness of the electrodes, not of output conductors.” PO Resp. 19–20. But, Mr. Gardner’s testimony similarly relies on passages directed to “basic concepts” of battery operations and, as a whole, focuses on the concept that reducing the thickness of the terminal electrode plates would “maximize the space available inside the cell for active components,” thereby increasing electrode density and improving battery performance. Ex. 1003 ¶ 323 (citing Ex. 1009, 35). According to Mr. Gardner, “these adjustments would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 104. We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. “Moreover, if 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 that person’s skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,496,581 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,496,581
• Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00813 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 8–12, and 18–20 are unpatentable: Okamoto anticipates some claims, and the asserted Okamoto- and Miyahara-based combinations render the claims obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties (Institution Dec. 7–8) to address any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing, neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 8

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

    “As detailed below, we determine that Patent Owner has not shown that the term “lead frame,” as recited by the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree that Okamoto shows the claimed lead frame, as a whole, providing support to the LED chip as required by claims 1 and 13. As shown in Okamoto’s Figure 1, reproduced above, “lead frame 8 is attached to the wiring pattern 6 drawn around an end of the glass substrate 2 with a solder material 9.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 29. According to Patent Owner, Okamoto’s transparent plate “supports the lead frame,” (PO Resp. 10) and as agreed upon by the parties, the claimed lead frame includes the transparent plate. Okamoto also discloses that the LED chip is on transparent glass substrate 2. Id. ¶ 27 (stating that LED elements “are disposed in a row on a front face of a light-transmissive glass substrate 2.”). Based on this disclosure, we find Okamoto teaches or suggests a lead frame that includes a transparent plate supporting an LED chip.” slip op. at 23

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

    “In sum, on the complete record, we find that the combination of Okamoto and Shimizu teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 11, and we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine Okamoto and Shimizu.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 9,859,464 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,859,464

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.