- U.S. Venture, Inc. v. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2020 · IPR2020-00728 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution for claims 16–17 based on the Fintiv factors and its § 314(a) discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for patent owner
“the evidence laid out an approximate time frame for when the trial would likely be held. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2003); see also id. at 8–9 (citing PO Resp. 35; Ex. 1026) (Discussing the Court’s Procedures and timeline for trial after the docket call). Thus, we determined that this factor favored denying institution under our analysis of the factors under Fintiv. Id. at 9.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner acknowledges that the proposed combination of the references relies on “us[ing] the cumulative totals of the flow rates of the unblended components in the Hoffman compensation process” (id.), however Patent Owner identifies that Hoffman appears to teach away from using the flow rates of the unblended components in its calculations because of the uncertainty in the flow rate of the blended line. Prelim. Resp. 19, 21– 22. Contrary to Petitioner’s position, it is not Patent Owner’s burden to show why “a person of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from measuring flow rates upstream for use in the Hoffman compensation process” (Reh. Req. 9), but rather, Petitioner bears the burden to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would measure flow rates upstream for use in the Hoffman compensation process in view of the all of the teachings of the references (35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (Institution only authorized if “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.”)). Petitioner’s arguments do not show that we misapprehended or” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageNot reached
“argument concerning the construction of the term “in-line blending.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,207,686 - Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01055 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“would have had either: (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field; or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors as well as my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“Patent Owner counters that Koning does not qualify as analogous art and, relatedly, that judicial estoppel bars Petitioner from contending otherwise. PO Resp. 7–17. Patent Owner further argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Koning’s belt with Hedderwick and Benac, and would not have expected that combination to succeed. Id. at 18–33; Sur-Reply 13–19. Patent Owner also challenges the motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the incorporation of Owner argues that incorporating Benac’s paddle wheel would not yield a “nip” as claimed. PO Resp. 49–61; Sur-Reply 29. Patent Owner also submits evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 61–98; Sur-Reply 2–10. 2. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Of the disputed issues summarized in the preceding section, our analysis focuses on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner Petitioner proposes and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. Because those issues are dispositive of Petitioner’s challenge, it is unnecessary for us to resolve the other disputed issues. See, e.g., Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming Board’s determination that claims were not shown to be obvious because the petitioner had not demonstrated that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references); Samsung Electronics Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (determining that it is unnecessary to reach other issues when reasonable expectation of success is dispositive).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 78 (“[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have determined through no more than routine experimentation how to orient Benac’s paddle wheel so that it could operate with Koning’s brush belt bristles to pinch seeds from the seed meter.”). It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the references in the proposed manner and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,699,955 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,699,955 - Precision Planting LLC / Agco Corporation v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2019-01048 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not proven unpatentable over Hedderwick and Koning because Petitioner did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine the references as proposed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the prior art, Dr. Glancey’s opinion testimony and analysis, and providing some, but minimal, weight to Dr. Taylor’s opinion testimony, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in a technology pertinent to the challenged claims would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, or five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree. A recipient of other academic degrees may qualify as a person of ordinary skill if they have taken coursework or have experience in the pertinent technology. Additional education could offset less work experience; additional work experience could offset less education or coursework.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that an explicit construction of the claims is not necessary for the purposes of determining whether the challenged claims are not patentable. slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently persuasive evidence, even in combination, to establish why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Hedderwick by (1) selectively gleaning only a portion of Koning’s conveying system, i.e., belt 44 with bristles 45, (2) selectively excluding Koning’s belt 23, and then (3) modifying Koning’s brush belt by reversing its orientation so that it carries seeds deposited into the bristles, as in the ’906 patent, rather than covering and guiding seeds carried by a separate and distinct conveyor belt, as in Koning. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding an absence of a motivation to reverse parts to an orientation that was “totally backwards” from what one of skill in the art would even attempt). Petitioner’s arguments do not acknowledge the different function of Koning’s brush belt, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt Koning’s brush belt to such a use and reasonably expect success in doing so. We determine Petitioner fails to meet its burden of providing a sufficiently persuasive explanation or reason for concluding that one of skill in the art would have combined these particular references to produce the claimed invention. “Without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias.” Metalcraft v. Toro, 848 F.3d at 1367. “[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” Id.” slip op. at 30
- ExcludeOther
“II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner and Patent Owner each move to exclude a substantial number of exhibits on a number of different evidentiary grounds. See Pet. Mot. Excl.; PO Mot. Exclude. As our analysis does not refer to any of those exhibits, we dismiss each motion as moot.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 9,686,906 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,686,906 - Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01044 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19– 20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construed 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).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).6 That standard “includ[es] 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.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEDDERWICK, KONING, AND BENAC” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, explains that [i]f a wheel is used to load and place seeds within a moving belt with brush hairs, the wheel must be able to disengage from seeds while the seeds remain in between brush hairs. If the wheel maintains contact with the seed after the seed has moved into the brush hairs, the wheel will continue to apply force to the seed and eject or remove the seed from the profile of the brush hairs . . . . Ex. 2200 ¶ 223. Dr. Glancey testifies, credibly, that in Petitioner’s combination, seeds would have been rejected from the belt because, as the paddle wheel rotates, seeds “would be scooped through the belt.” Id. ¶ 225.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“way the references use endless members in the form of brush belts and paddle wheels, versus the way Petitioner uses those components in the proposed combination. Contrary to Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s assertions, the proposed combination does not merely apply known techniques to a known device, because none of the cited references use brush belts and paddle wheels in the manner Petitioner proposes. As discussed in greater detail below, Benac teaches that a paddle wheel can be used to ensure that seeds jammed in vacuum holes are released reliably, and then dropped to the ground. Benac does not address brush belts as an endless member and, therefore, does not teach that paddle wheels can be used to guide seeds into the bristles of a brush belt, as Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 64. And Koning does not teach a brush belt that captures seeds released from above, as Petitioner and Mr. Prairie propose. See Pet. 61–62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 2193, 190:10–191:3; Ex. 2263, 167:21–170:9. Rather, Koning’s brush belt maintains the relative position of potatoes lying on a conveying surface by holding them from above while the conveyor moves them to the furrow. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4. Petitioner’s arguments do not adequately account for these differences between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 80. It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,813,663 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,813,663 - Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01046 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 3 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Yamahata under § 103 because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Our determination is primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above, as well as the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology of the ’199 patent. We have considered Mr. Prairie’s opinion, but we give that testimony minimal weight due to the lack of supporting explanation. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in agricultural engineering, or a similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION “In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed 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).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).7 That standard “includ[es] 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.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent” slip op. at 14
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1135 ¶ 51. Yet it is Petitioner’s burden to show motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination, not Patent Owner’s burden to show that the prior art demonstrates the futility of the proposed combination. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner’s affirmative showing on motivation and reasonable expectation of success for using Koning’s brush belt in the proposed combination is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. And Patent Owner’s evidence of difficulties an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected to encounter in that proposal serves to highlight the issues that Petitioner’s showing ignores. Petitioner additionally contends that Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the erroneous premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan must be able to physically combine the references. See Pet. Reply 7 (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). We disagree. Patent Owner’s arguments, summarized above, simply point out that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have expected success in combining the references’ teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success are properly assessed with reference to the combination as Petitioner has framed it. The Federal Circuit has explained that doing so is not inconsistent with Mouttet. See Samsung, 925 F.3d at 1382–83 (“We will not fault the Board for analyzing Petitioners’ obviousness grounds in the way presented in the Petition.”).” slip op. at 34
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s analysis does not acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in above.10 During his deposition, Mr. Prairie resisted agreeing that the potatoes are lying on the conveyor in Koning, testifying that he takes from Koning’s description that “they are captured within the belt with brush hairs. And that there is some weight that’s along the conveying member 23.” Ex. 2193, 96:24–99:25. Mr. Prairie testified that he “do[es]n’t believe the brush hairs support the full weight of the potatoes,” but that Koning did not provide him sufficient information to answer whether the conveying member supports the majority of the weight of the potatoes. Id. at 106:22–107:21. In our view, it is clear from Koning’s description that the potatoes lie on the conveyor and the purpose of the brush belt is to maintain their position relative to each other while they are moved by the conveyor. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 140–141 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, testifying that a simple mechanical analysis shows that in Koning, about 87% of the potatoes’ weight is supported by the conveying member). Mr. Prairie’s refusal to acknowledge the differences between the brush belt’s function in Koning versus the proposed combination undermines the credibility of his testimony that the proposed combination would have been a simple application of a known technique to a known device. 10 See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting expert testimony that supported the absence of a motivation to combine: “[I]f I can equate this one to kind of a simple analogy, if you’re trying to build a piece of furniture. What’s a typical thing? You put on a piece of wood. You take a nail, and you hit the nail with a hammer. In control terms, what Mr. Phipps is suggesting is that you put the hammer on the workbench, pick up the piece of furniture and bash the piece of furniture onto the hammer. It’s totally backwards from what I believe one of skill in the art would even attempt . . . .”). have been simple for an ordinarily skilled artisan to adapt Koning’s brush belt for use in the proposed combination, where seeds are deposited onto the brush belt from above—is further undermined by his testimony that he “can’t recall a time where I’ve seen a seed being dropped into a brush belt.” Ex. 2193, 113:5–9; see also Ex. 2263, 81:2–12 (“Q. And you never attempted to drop a seed onto a moving brush belt to see whether that would be inserted into the brush belt, correct? A. As I stated, for the purposes of this case, I did not do any physical experimentation with a moving brush belt as I didn’t feel it was necessary. The prior art discloses sufficient information.”) (objection omitted). Mr. Prairie has “had some industrial design projects where we’ve had to utilize brushes for various applications,” but he “ha[s] not used a brush belt to convey seed.” Ex. 2194, 297:6–16. Mr. Prairie testified that “prior to writing this declaration, brush belt technology was not a specific area that I study, that I was researching.” Ex. 2263, 79:6–9. Indeed, during his initial deposition in this case, the only specific example of a moving brush belt Mr. Prairie could recall seeing was Patent Owner’s ExactEmerge product. Ex. 2193, 108:6–110:10. The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be expected to enter a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be Koning itself. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–81; Ex. 2193, 116:12–19, 118:7–23; Ex. 2263, 159:5–160:2. When asked at his deposition, Mr. Prairie did not explain any other engineering analysis he performed to make that determination. Ex. 2193, 114:23–117:12. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to receive and convey seeds that have been dropped onto it from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds dropped from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,480,199 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,480,199 - Oticon Medical AB / Oticon Medical LLC et al. v. Cochlear LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00975 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14, 16, 17, 25, 28, 33–35, 37–41, and 45–47 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a rationale to combine Westerkull ’794 and Choi.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“At the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that the differences between the parties’ assertions regarding the level of skill in the art would not be dispositive. Tr. 25:12–26:11. In view of the lack of material dispute on this issue, we adopt Patent Owner’s asserted level of skill, which we find to be supported by the testimony of Dr. Rentschler. See Ex. 2037 ¶¶ 54–55; see also Tr. 26:10–11 (Counsel for Petitioner: “We agree that the issues really here are highly mechanical.”).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We now turn to the issue of whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. Petitioner argues that the preamble recites an intended use because the body of claim 1 recites the structural limitations but the preamble does not. Pet. Supp. Br. 3. Petitioner also argues that the preamble recites an intended use because, in another case between the same parties involving a different claim relating to the same subject matter, the court concluded that the preamble recited an intended use. Id. at 3 (citing Cochlear Bone Anchored Sols. AB v. Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Patent Owner argues that the preamble is limiting because the phrase “the bone” has its antecedent basis in the phrase “a skull bone” in the preamble. PO Supp. Br. 3 (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). We determine, as a matter of reading the words of the claim, that the antecedent basis for “the bone” is “a skull bone” in the preamble of claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 5:56–57. Accordingly, we determine that the preamble is limiting. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 436 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“anode gel” was understood to be the antecedent basis for “said zinc anode”).9 In other words, it is a requirement that the prosthesis is structured so that it is appropriate for being anchored into the skull bone. See Catalina 9 Patent Owner also argues that the cases relied on in the Petition to argue that the preamble is not limiting stand for the opposite proposition because, in those cases, the preambles were limiting because they introduced or defined terms later used in the claims. PO Supp. Br. 4 n.1 (citing Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). We agree with Patent Owner that the statement of law in the Petition, i.e., that a preamble may recite an intended use when the body of the claim recites all structural elements (see Pet. 19), is not dispositive of this case because the body of the claim refers back to the preamble. Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.”). 2. the preamble: “bone fixture configured to anchor to bone” (claim 8) For similar reasons as for the preamble of claim 1, we determine that the preamble of claim 8 is limiting, i.e., because it provides antecedent basis for “the bone” in the body of the claim. However, the preamble of claim 8 only refers to “bone” and not to “a skull bone” and therefore does not itself impose a limitation of a “skull bone.” Compare Ex. 1001, 6:22, with id. at 5:56–57.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“means “a channel, distinct from the screw thread and distinct from the flange, extending around the cylindrical portion of the main body of the anchor, having an inner diameter and an outer diameter.” Pet. 20. Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill would understand that a circumferential groove is provided to “exert a compressive radial force on the skull bone to improve stability of the anchoring fixture.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). The District Court construed “circumferential groove” to mean “a narrow channel extending around the cylindrical periphery of the main body of the implant.” Ex. 3001, 33.10” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In response to our question inviting further briefing, Petitioner submits that “periphery” refers to the widest portion of the fixture inserted into the skull and distinct from the flange. See Pet. Reply 2. Patent Owner does not comment on the question. See PO Resp. 15–17. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to further construe the term “periphery.” See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims are construed only to the extent necessary to resolve a dispute). 4. “wherein the anchoring fixture is configured for anchoring a hearing” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 9,838,807 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,838,807 - LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2020 · IPR2020-00823 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because LKQ did not show a reasonable likelihood that the sole challenged claim was obvious over the Avenir Article and Lau.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine that the circular portion, horizontal extensions and shape of the vertical tines contribute to the overall visual impression of the design claimed in the ’105 patent. In light of that, we determine that LKQ has not made a threshold showing that Avenir Article is a single reference that creates basically the same visual impression as the claimed design. High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1312. We further determine on this record, that the circular portion and horizontal extensions as well as the shape of the vertical tines all contribute to the overall visual impression of the claimed design. In light of that, we conclude that even if a designer of ordinary skill were to have combined the Avenir Article and Lau, the result would not be prior art that accounts for the overall visual appearance of the ’105 design. See High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1311. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that LKQ has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claim is unpatentable over the Avenir Article in combination with Lau. III. CONCLUSION LKQ has not demonstrated that that it is more likely than not that the challenged design claim of the ’105 patent is unpatentable based on the challenges presented.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. The Designer of Ordinary Skill LKQ contends that: a designer of ordinary skill would be an individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design and work experience in the field of transportation or automotive design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in transportation or automotive design. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45; Ex. 1004 ¶ 44). GM argues, without citation to evidence, that: [a] designer of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’105 patent would have at least an undergraduate degree in automotive design, or other related industrial design field, with at least two years of relevant practical experience in designing automotive body parts. An increase in experience could compensate for less education, and an increase in education could likewise compensate for less experience. Prelim. Resp. 9. The parties do not identify, and we do not discern, any material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. For purposes of this decision and on the record currently before us, which includes testimony by LKQ’s witnesses, we adopt LKQ’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer. Also, we point out that adopting GM’s definition would not alter the outcome of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“central circular portion and the horizontal extensions shown in the claimed design, as compared to Avenir Article, would be considered de minimis by a designer of ordinary skill in the art. For instance, Mr. Gandy testifies that “a designer of ordinary skill would have been motivated to increase the dimensions of the circular portion of the vehicle grille in order to accommodate a larger emblem in the grille.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 66. This testimony expresses a reason for enlarging the circular portion. It is not, however, persuasive evidence that the larger circle size does not have a significant impact on the overall visual impression of the claimed design. Indeed, the larger central circle and angled horizontal extensions of the claimed design are not, in our view, insignificant or minor aspects of the claim. When compared to Avenir Article, the claimed central ornamental elements work together in the context of the overall design such that the larger circle and the proximal tapered and angled ends of the horizontal extensions present a proportionally larger and dynamic emblematic element relative to the bezel and vertical tines. Although both designs are for a vehicle front grille and include a similar bezel profile and generally show vertical tines, the smaller circle and linear blade-like horizontal extensions in Avenir Article do not look like the larger and proportionally dominating central circular portion and horizontal extensions with angled and tapering proximal ends adjacent the circular portion of the claimed design. Add to this the claimed design having vertical tines with decreasing depth portions adjacent the bezel, and thus the claimed design presents a more muscular and dynamic impression than the straight blade-like horizontal extensions and smaller circular portion in Avenir Article. In light of these differences we are not persuaded that a designer of ordinary skill would have viewed Avenir Article as providing the same visual impression as the claimed design so as to be an appropriate primary reference.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“2. The Asserted Secondary Reference – Lau Even were we to find that Avenir Article was a proper primary reference, which we do not, and that a designer of ordinary skill would have determined that Lau was so related in ornamental appearance to Avenir Article and would suggest the application of those features Avenir Article, the combination still fails to address the conspicuous discrepancies between the designs discussed above. See In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 1380 (CCPA 1982) (“The designs of other references may properly be relied upon for modification of this basic design when the references are ‘“so related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.’”).7 LKQ acknowledges that the images in Avenir Article do not reveal the partial tines as shown in the claimed design. Pet. 52. LKQ relies on Lau mostly for its disclosure of a vehicle grille and “partial tines” along the bottom of the grille interposed between the substantially vertical tines. Id. at 52. We reproduce Petitioner’s annotated figures comparing the claimed design, Avenir Article, and Lau, below. 7 Because we determined that Avenir Article was not a sufficient primary reference, we need not make a finding here as to whether a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Avenir Article and Lau. We assume, only for the sake of argument, that the combination is appropriate.” slip op. at 22
§ 103 obviousness - Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Huber Engineered Woods LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 5, 2020 · IPR2019-00919 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable: APA does not disclose the claimed panel-joint sealant, and the proposed combinations fail to establish the required limitations or motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“In our Decision to Institute, we determined that a POSITA “would have had a degree in civil engineering, building, material, wood science, or other degree, if such other degree required coursework or experience in the pertinent technology and two years of industry experience or equivalent therein.” Inst. Dec. 14. We further determined, “Additional education, such as an advanced degree, could offset less work experience, and additional work experience could offset less education or coursework.” Id. Patent Owner adopts the level of a POSITA set forth in our Decision to Institute. PO Resp. 13 (“HEW adopts the Board’s definition of a POSA.”). Petitioner does not address our definition in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. We maintain the level of a POSITA that we provided in our Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Claim 11 Independent claim 11 recites the step of “positioning” wall panels, where each panel comprises a “barrier layer.” Ex. 1001, 22:49–63. The claim further requires the separate step of “fastening” each panel assembly to a building structure. Id. As a matter of logic, the panels cannot be fastened onto the structure until they have first been positioned. See Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398– 99 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] claim ‘requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires’ an order of steps.”). Accordingly, claim 11’s step of “positioning at least two wall panel assemblies” occurs before the step of “fastening each panel assembly to the structure.” Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 3:59–61, Fig. 10 (depicting a flow diagram of the steps included in the manufacture of a panel for roof or wall sheathing). Furthermore, because the “positioning” step of the claim requires each of its panels to have “a barrier layer secured to the outer surface of each panel,” it logically follows that the panels have barrier layers before the panels are fastened to the structure. For the foregoing reason, we interpret claim 11 to require the “adjacent structural wall panels” to each have a “barrier layer secured to the outer surface of each panel” before the panels are fastened to the structure, and before the joint between the edges of the adjacent panels are sealed.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Despite the disagreement between Patent Owner and Petitioner regarding the meaning of the claimed “barrier layer secured to the outer surface of each panel,” construing this claim phrase is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (internal citation omitted)). Rather, we determine that the only claim that requires construction is method claim 11.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 9,546,479 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,546,479 - PTAB · Oct 2, 2020 · IPR2019-01539 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution, finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial under § 314(a).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Petitioner asserts that “under NHK Spring, the Board here abused its § 314(a) discretion because it lacked an independent reason for denying review beyond the existence of a related district court action.” Req. Reh’g 3. According to Petitioner, “NHK Spring does not give the Board authority to deny institution solely or primarily because a related district court action could potentially resolve the overlapping invalidity disputes before a final decision by the Board.” Id. We disagree. Petitioner has provided no persuasive authority supporting its interpretation of NHK Spring. Binding precedent, discussed below, is contrary to Petitioner’s argued interpretation.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“7. Conclusion Under Fintiv, the Board takes “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Fintiv factor 1 weighs evenly for each party. Fintiv factor 2 weighs moderately in favor of exercising our discretion to not institute a trial. Fintiv factor 3 weighs strongly in favor of denying institution and avoiding duplication at PTAB of discovery and other work by the parties and the Court. Fintiv factor 4 weighs in favor of discretionary denial of an inter partes review. Fintiv factor 5 weighs in favor of discretionary denial. Fintiv factor 6 favors discretionary denial. Thus, based on this analysis, we determine under the particular circumstances of this case, the interests of efficiency and integrity of the patent system tilt toward invoking our discretionary authority under § 314(a) to deny institution of the Petition. Based on our analysis, Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion in denying the Petition. Accordingly, the request for rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“7. Conclusion Under Fintiv, the Board takes “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Fintiv factor 1 weighs evenly for each party. Fintiv factor 2 weighs moderately in favor of exercising our discretion to not institute a trial. Fintiv factor 3 weighs strongly in favor of denying institution and avoiding duplication at PTAB of discovery and other work by the parties and the Court. Fintiv factor 4 weighs in favor of discretionary denial of an inter partes review. Fintiv factor 5 weighs in favor of discretionary denial. Fintiv factor 6 favors discretionary denial. Thus, based on this analysis, we determine under the particular circumstances of this case, the interests of efficiency and integrity of the patent system tilt toward invoking our discretionary authority under § 314(a) to deny institution of the Petition. Based on our analysis, Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion in denying the Petition. Accordingly, the request for rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denial - Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. v. Geigtech East Bay LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 1, 2020 · PGR2020-00012 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Lutron’s rehearing request and maintained denial of institution because Colson did not show the claimed passage through the bracket.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“party challenging the decision,” and the challenging party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“limitations regarding a “passage” and “opening,” our discussion focuses on claim 1, but our analysis applies equally to all of the challenged claims. Claim 1 is directed to a bracket configured to be coupled to a support surface and configured to support a roller window shade assembly. Ex. 1001, 10:20–23. The recited bracket includes “a side configured to bear against the support surface such that the bracket extends away from the support surface and is adjacent an end of the roller window shade assembly.” Id. at 10:24–27. Claim 1 also requires “a passage extending through the bracket from the side to an area of the bracket adjacent the roller window shade assembly[.]”” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Pet. 44. However, we observe that Colson makes no mention of a passage that wires 130 must pass through. Instead, Colson teaches that there are “openings” in the bracket and frame. Id. ¶ 31. And, Colson explicitly states that the openings are not shown in Figure 1. Thus, Colson, at most, teaches that wires pass through the bracket and frame, but does not specify where the openings are in Figure 1 or, otherwise, define the path of the passage. This is important because claim 1 requires a specific passage that extends “through the bracket from the side to an area of the bracket adjacent the roller window shade assembly.” Petitioner would have us assume that Colson’s two-dimensional Figure 1 read with paragraph 31 must disclose wires passing through a specific path through the bracket, as recited in the claims. However, we decline to make Petitioner’s proposed assumption because it is not supported by Colson or other evidence.” slip op. at 7
NonePatents in suitUS 10,294,717
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.