- PTAB · Oct 10, 2023 · IPR2023-00611 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29–39, and 41–45 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success over Mueller, Ansems, and Simon.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“whether the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Central to this analysis is factor (c) of Becton, Dickinson, which “focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments.” Id. at 10. In cases where the Office raised a specific teaching of a reference during prosecution, and the petitioner disagrees with that specific finding of record, “then ordinarily the petitioner’s required showing of material error must overcome persuasively that specific finding of record.” Id. On the other hand, we are often presented with circumstances such as those found in the present case, where the prior art that was previously presented to the Office was not substantively remarked upon or applied in a rejection of the claims. This often occurs in the context of art submitted on an IDS, which is the manner in which the majority of the references identified by Colt in this case were incorporated into the file history. Ex. 1002, 216 (Kit, Ducharme ’261, Mueller ’029), 217 (Katzir). Only Simon” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Skill Quasar asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, or a closely related field, along with at least two years of experience in the design of entertaining lighting systems, and the design and use of LED lights.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–33). Colt does not dispute Quasar’s characterization of the level of skill, arguing that “the proposed level of ordinary skill does not affect the ultimate analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 15. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Quasar’s definition of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the disclosure of the ’224 patent and asserted prior art of record. If the parties disagree with our preliminary finding, they are invited to further brief the issue of level of ordinary skill in the art and, in particular, which disputed issues material to patentability turn on the definition adopted by the Board.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Both parties agree that the terms of the claims of the ’224 patent should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, but neither party further elaborates on what those meanings are for any particular claim term. Pet. 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 15. We interpret the parties’ positions to be that no claim term of the ’224 patent requires express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial. Upon review of the record and the parties’ arguments, we agree. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“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 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,197,224 - PTAB · May 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00160 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses a two-part framework for evaluating arguments under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, materials or chemical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a related discipline with at least five years of experience in the design of lithium-ion button-cell battery structures.” Pet. 19. Petitioner further contends that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by more work experience.” Id. Patent Owner states that the Preliminary Response “establishes that Petitioner’s arguments fail under its proffered definition of” a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See id. (“Patent Owner reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] if an IPR is instituted.”). To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe each 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) (2019). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary 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, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner argues that “[t]he claims should be accorded their ordinary and customary meaning and do not require further construction by the Board for determination of this Petition.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner agrees that “no claim construction is necessary to deny institution.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“these drawbacks in a petition directed to a related patent, where Petitioner argued that “a significant portion of the available space within [Kobayashi’s] cell is reduced by the process of crimping the cell closed.” Id. at 46 (quoting Ex. 2008, 2–3). Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner fails to explain why the beaded-over Kobayashi housing Petitioner and its same expert disparaged in another petition would be used in the present combination of references proposed in this Petition.” Id. at 48. Patent Owner’s argument raises an issue about a tradeoff that a person of ordinary skill in the art might or might not have made: under Petitioner’s proposed combination of teachings, it may be that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to accept reduced internal volume, and the consequent reduction in energy capacity, as the price of avoiding short circuits. The question of whether this tradeoff existed and, if so, whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the tradeoff is a factual issue best resolved on the full record to be developed at trial. Patent Owner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have replaced Higuchi’s housing with Kobayashi’s to reduce the risk of short circuits. Prelim. Resp. 48–49. Patent Owner points to Petitioner’s arguments in a related case regarding claims 27 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,024,905, where Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to add Kubota’s insulation tape to Higuchi’s leads 11 and 12, and Patent Owner argues that a similar modification here “could reduce such risk Kobayashi’s housing.” Id. at 48–49 (citing Ex. 2042, 2–4). According to Patent Owner, if “Petitioner and its expert are correct that a [POSITA] would have been motivated to adhere an insulation strip to both sides of Higuchi’s lead, it would not be necessary to change Higuchi’s housing for Kobayashi’s beaded-over housing to reduce the risk of short circuits.” Id. at 49. The fact that the prior art may suggest that some combination of techniques is more desirable than, or otherwise preferred over, the combination on which Petitioner relies does not preclude a finding that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 713 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Thus, we have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, and although they cast doubt on Petitioner’s contentions and create a genuine issue of material fact, we are persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner provides sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the teachings of Higuchi and Kobayashi as proposed. Pet. 21–33. Specifically, Petitioner sufficiently establishes, for purposes of institution, that a POSITA would have had reason to modify Higuchi’s cell to use Kobayashi’s housing in order to reduce the risk that the cell would short circuit. Id. at 23–27. Whether Petitioner sufficiently establishes this issue to prove unpatentability is an issue we need not, and do not, resolve on this preliminary record. We invite the parties to develop these arguments further at trial, to the extent permitted under our rules.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,024,869 - Florida Food Products, LLC v. Kerry Group Services Int’L Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,071,304 - PTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01478 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’907 patent, and we do not exercise discretion to deny the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–30 of the ’907 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses a two-part framework for evaluating arguments under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). In applying this framework, we consider the Becton, Dickinson7 factors that address discretion to deny when a petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, including:” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“(“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor’s level college degree in Mechanical, Electrical, Materials or Chemical Engineering, or Science, including Chemistry or Physics or a related field and three to four years of training and experience in the design of electrochemical cells and batteries.” Pet. 5–6. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for a lesser or different education, and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner states that the Preliminary Response “establishes that Petitioner’s arguments fail even under its proffered definition of” a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See id. (“Patent Owner reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] if an IPR is instituted.”). To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner requests that all claim terms other than “disposed along” be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning, as understood by a POSITA at the time of the purported invention.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner asserts that its arguments “do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about any claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,024,907 - Eve Energy Co., Ltd. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01486 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 14–25 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either asserted obviousness combination taught the force-fitting connection limitation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“top casing in an overlapping area, the top casing is disposed radially inward of the cup casing in the overlapping area, and the housing cup and the housing top are held together by a force-fitting connection.” Ex. 3001, 1:37–41. Independent claim 23 recites an identical limitation. Id. at 2:55– 59. The remaining challenged claims each depend, directly or indirectly, from one of these two claims. Id. at 1:47–2:29, 4:1–16. Accordingly, all of the challenged claims include a limitation requiring that “the housing cup and the housing top [be] held together by a force-fitting connection.” See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c). To show the obviousness of any of these claims, Petitioner must show that the asserted prior art teaches or suggests a “housing cup” and a “housing top” that “are held together by a force-fitting connection.” As discussed above, a battery made in accordance with the teachings of the prior art is not a battery that is “held together by a force-fitting connection” unless that battery would cease to be held together in the absence of the “force-fitting connection.”” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner does not propose an express construction of any claim term, and contends that the claims “should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner agrees that no term requires construction at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 20. For the reasons discussed below, we are able to determine whether to institute trial without expressly construing any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“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 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“cites to four paragraphs of Mr. Juzkow’s declaration, without discussing the testimony or providing any statement of its relevance. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 402–405). It is unclear whether the cited testimony is intended to support the Kobayashi argument, the Brenner argument, or both. Id. In any case, the first cited paragraph does not contain any testimony supporting either of Petitioner’s arguments, instead merely directing the reader to “§X.A.1.f” of Mr. Juzkow’s declaration, without specifying the page numbers or paragraph numbers where that section can be found. Ex. 1002 ¶ 402. Section IX.A.1.f appears to include eleven additional paragraphs covering six pages and mostly to discuss a reference, Kaun, that is not at issue in this proceeding. Id. ¶¶ 125–135. The other three paragraphs cited in the Petition generally just parrot the conclusory language in the Petition and are of limited persuasive value. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). In any event, Mr. Juzkow’s testimony addresses only whether there is a force-fitting connection, not whether the button cell is held together by the forces. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 403–405.” slip op. at 15
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,496,581 - Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,846,174 - PTAB · Feb 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01283 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–63 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Roberts, Taraschuk, and Wright.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Having considered the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that, for the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Patent Owner does not persuade us that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution. We thus institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 64 (Nov. 2019) (“TPG”) (“The Board will not institute on fewer than all claims or all challenges in a petition.”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“We need not proceed to the second prong of the Advanced Bionics framework because Petitioner presents a challenge applying Roberts and Taraschuk in combination with Wright, a reference not considered during prosecution of the ’998 patent. Petitioner’s challenge applying Roberts, Taraschuk, and Wright is also supported by Dr. Blumenthal’s Declaration, evidence which was not before the Examiner during prosecution of the ’998 patent. Patent Owner does not address this additional evidence, or provide us with any reason why they are “substantially the same” as the disclosures of Roberts and Taraschuk that were previously presented to the Office. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner presents at least one challenge–– the challenge applying Roberts, Taraschuk, and Wright––that is not based on substantially the same art or substantially the same arguments as previously presented during prosecution. Patent Owner’s arguments that “Wright is in a different field and uses a different approach to compensation as what is discussed (briefly) in Taraschuk” lend support to this finding. Prelim. Resp. 60. Even if we were to continue to the second prong of the Advanced Bionics framework, as Patent Owner urges, we would find that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Patent Owner’s argument relies heavily on the fact that both Roberts and Taraschuk were cited during prosecution, and while Roberts was the basis of a rejection, Taraschuk is “presumed to have [been] considered” because it was listed by the applicant on an IDS. Prelim. Resp. 2. But when a reference was not the basis of rejection, the Board has found that this weighs “strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution.” CODE200, UAB et al. Patent Owner’s arguments in this case are nearly identical to those raised in a related case involving both Roberts and Taraschuk, where we found there was insufficient basis to justify discretionary denial. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel-Aviv University Ltd., IPR2022-00575, Paper 10 at 32–38 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2022). Patent Owner’s arguments fare no better here, and we incorporate our discussion in the related case herein. Indeed, the record before us in this case is even more persuasive of material error. As Petitioner notes, during prosecution of a related application that is a continuation of the ’998 patent, the Examiner rejected the pending claims over Roberts and Taraschuk after being provided with materials from this inter partes review, including the analysis in the Petition. Reply 1–3. At the very least, this rejection suggests that the Office erred by not rejecting the claims of the ’998 patent over Roberts and Taraschuk. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded to exercise our” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). According to Petitioner, [a] Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in June of 2007 would have had a working knowledge of optical modulators and modulation schemes. A POSITA would have had a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to optical communications, and in particular, optical signal modulation. 5 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness at this stage of the proceeding. education, and vice versa. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–23). According to Patent Owner: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’998 Patent would have at least a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering or Electrical and Computer Engineering, with at least two years of academic or professional engineering experience in the analysis and design of optoelectronic systems for optical communications. Prelim. Resp. 43 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 22). We do not discern a substantial difference between the parties’” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner contends construction of the aforementioned terms is “not necessary to the resolution of any issues presented in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 44. As contended by Patent Owner, “[t]he Board did not need to and did not address claim construction in dismissing Cisco’s three prior IPRs challenging related patents with shared specifications.” Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 2004). We need not construe any claim term to resolve the institution question, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,342,998 - PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01206 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in 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.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19 of the ’648 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The express language of claim 1 requires no solubility threshold, and dependent claim 10 of related U.S. Patent No. 10,288,620 B2 demonstrates that, where a solubility threshold was intended by the inventors of these patents, they knew how to expressly set forth that threshold in the claims. Compare Ex. 1004, 222:47–49 (“capable of imparting solubility in water”), with Ex. 1005, 218:12–14 (“The method according to claim 1, wherein each R is a non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water in excess of 10 mg/mL.”). Thus, the claim language does not support applying a particular solubility threshold in claim 1. As noted by Patent Owner, the written description of the ’648 patent explains that “each R is independently a non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water in excess of 10 mg/mL.” Ex. 1004, 2:21–22; Prelim. Resp. 17. This solubility threshold, however, is not in claim 1. Also, the ’648 patent states that this solubility applies only to some embodiments. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 53:9–12, 55:6–20. We decline to import such a limitation from the written description into claim 1 absent reason for doing so. See SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “reading a limitation from the written description into the claims” is “one of the cardinal sins of patent law”); see also Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent’m Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words.”). After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence presented, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed definition reads into the claim a numeric threshold for solubility from an embodiment that is nowhere apparent from the claim itself. “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in original). Although we must read a patent’s claims in light of the specification, see, e.g., Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998), that obligation does not authorize “reading a limitation from the written description into the claims.” SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Confining the scope of “non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water” to an unexpressed minimum solubility taken from only “some” embodiments encompassed by the ’648 patent crosses that line. See, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1432–34 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claims to a co-polymer improperly interpreted to include two properties). In view of the foregoing, we construe the phrase “a non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water” to not require any particular numeric threshold of solubility. No further construction of the claim is necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties with respect to institution of trial.15” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“in situations where a district court trial date is set to occur before the issuance of the Board’s final written decision. The facts and reasoning of Fintiv are, at a minimum, only applicable to cases in which the district court has actually set a trial date in a copending litigation. But here, as will be discussed below, the parties agree that no trial date has been set, and the District Court has stayed the litigation. Prelim. Reply 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (“There has never been a trial date). Furthermore, that stay will continue until our final determination should we decide to institute trial. Without a trial date, we see no need to engage in a full analysis of the Fintiv factors,17 as there is no basis for Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Xue expressly discloses that its glycopolymers utilizing poly(ethylene glycol)-tethered spacers (Polymers B and C) “are highly water-soluble due to their long, flexible, hydrophilic spacers.” Ex. 1010, Abstr., 2289–90. As claim 1 does not require any particular solubility threshold, on this record, Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that Xue expressly discloses the solubility limitation of independent claim 1.” slip op. at 33
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,302,648 - PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01205 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–10, 18, and 20 based on the asserted § 102 and § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Here, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 11–17 of the ’417 patent. Prelim. Resp. 1–2; Ex. 2019. Based on our review of Exhibit 2019, we determine that a disclaimer of claims 11–17 of the ’417 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been filed with the Office as of October 5, 2022. Based on the information in the public record, we find that the disclaimer complies with the above-listed requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Because claims 11–17 have been disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a), in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), we do not reach challenges to claims 11–17. As a result, the remaining challenged claims are claims 1–10, 18, and 20 (“the challenged claims”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“in situations where a district court trial date is set to occur before the issuance of the Board’s final written decision. The facts and reasoning of Fintiv are, at a minimum, only applicable to cases in which the district court has actually set a trial date in a copending litigation. But here, as will be discussed below, the parties agree that no trial date has been set, and the 14 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. District Court has stayed the litigation. Prelim. Reply 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (“There has never been a trial date). Furthermore, that stay will continue until our final determination should we decide to institute trial. Without a trial date, we see no need to engage in a full analysis of the Fintiv factors,15 as there is no basis for Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to challenged claims 1–10, 18, and 20 of the ’417 patent. At this juncture in the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, or with respect to claim construction. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–10, 18, and 20 of the ’417 patent is hereby instituted with respect to the ground of unpatentability set forth in the Petition; and FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial will commence on the entry date of this Decision.” slip op. at 44
- Skill levelOther
“would have at least a Ph.D. degree in chemistry, or a bachelor’s or master’s degree plus experience involving the use and design of fluorescent probes or dyes.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–18). Patent Owner agrees that a POSITA may have a Ph.D. degree or master’s degree in chemistry, but asserts that a POSITA would also have “some experience with fluorescence” in addition to a Ph.D. degree in chemistry and that the experience of a POSITA with a master’s degree in chemistry is alternatively “industry experience in the field of biological detection systems.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 7). For purposes of this Decision, we need not resolve these differences between the parties’ definitions, because any differences do not affect our analysis.13 If either party believes that adopting its preferred definition of the level of ordinary skill would have a material effect on the outcome of this proceeding, the party should address this issue during the instituted trial. slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,955,417 - PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01203 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in 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.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19 of the ’989 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“in situations where a district court trial date is set to occur before the issuance of the Board’s final written decision. The facts and reasoning of Fintiv are, at a minimum, only applicable to cases in which the district court has actually set a trial date in a copending litigation. But here, as will be discussed below, the parties agree that no trial date has been set, and the District Court has stayed the litigation. Prelim. Reply 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (“There has never been a trial date.”). Furthermore, that stay will continue until our final determination should we decide to institute trial. Without a trial date, we see no need to engage in a full analysis of the Fintiv factors,14 as there is no basis for Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“numerical solubility limit into the claims, noting that the ’989 patent expressly defines “non-ionic side groups capable of imparting solubility in water” as simply “side groups which are not charged and allow the resulting polymer to be soluble in water or aqueous solution with no visible particulates.” Prelim. Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1001, 54:9–13). Petitioner notes that this definition contains no numerical limit, and that it is followed by a statement that in some embodiments, the R group is capable of imparting solubility in excess of 10 mg/mL. Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 54:13–16). Petitioner contends that reading a limitation from “some embodiments” into the claims would be “one of the cardinal sins of patent law.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320; Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, 48 F.4th 1365, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2022)). Petitioner also directs our attention to related patents that expressly claim a solubility in excess of 10 mg/mL, arguing that when Patent Owner sought to claim such polymers, it knew how to do so. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 218:11–12; Ex. 1006, 239:43–45, 252:51–52, 254:39–40, 262:56–57, 269:31–35).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“proposed claim construction on solubility above, which we declined to do on the present record. For this reason, we find them unpersuasive. In addition, we note that Xue expressly discloses that its glycopolymers utilizing PEG-tethered spacers (Polymers B and C) “are highly water-soluble due to their long, flexible, hydrophilic spacers.” Ex. 1010, Abstract, 2289–90. Petitioner sufficiently sets forth why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the PEG side chains of Xue to impart solubility in water, which is all we have construed the claims to require.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,458,989
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.