- Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00707 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 5 is unpatentable over Gao-2 and over Gao-2 with Goubet; claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable on any ground, and substitute claim 17 was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose explicit constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 16–17; PO Resp. 5–6. Based on the complete record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“As an initial matter, the record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration for allegedly not reviewing the parties’ claim constructions. See Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1046, 115:15–18). Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited 11 This refers to the recitation in clauses 1F and 5F that the “diffusion assembly is disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber.” discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1; see also Pet. Reply 3 (arguing that “Dr. Micklow’s opinion that the prior art does not render the claims obvious is premised on an interpretation of certain claim limitations that are inconsistent with both parties’ constructions” (emphasis added)). Instead, we read Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also id. at 115:15–18 (“I don’t know if I would even apply claim construction. I applied engineering principles to a document that had been published with the patent office.”).” slip op. at 12
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“referring to the same direction as the separation of the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber” (vertically in both Figure 6 of the challenged patent and Figure 1 of Goubet), we turn back now to Petitioner’s discussion of clause 1F, which includes the limitation at issue. There, Petitioner does not discuss why the “diffusion assembly” is allegedly “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber,” but instead, Petitioner discusses why a component of the “diffusion assembly”—the “atomizer assembly”—is allegedly “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber”: Pet. 39. In the end, we need not assess whether the “atomizer assembly” identified by Petitioner is “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber” under the proper construction of that term (which, again, we need not and do not determine here) because the “disposed between” limitation does not involve the “atomizer assembly.” Instead, we find that, by failing to address why the identified “diffusion assembly” is “disposed between” the identified “upper chamber” and “lower chamber,” Petitioner has failed to provide persuasive evidence that Goubet discloses or suggests the “disposed between” limitation. Pet. 38–39 (discussing the claim language “said diffusion assembly is disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber” but only discussing the location of the “atomizer assembly”); see 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review . . . , the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”). For the reasons above, we find, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Goubet discloses or suggests the “disposed between” limitation.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,092,918 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,092,918 - Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00706 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, and 7–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Goubet and anticipated by Gao; proposed substitute claims 20 and 21 are denied as indefinite and lacking written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, but Patent Owner “reserves the right to address [the definition] should new issues materialize.” PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner did not address this issue in the Sur-reply. As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). At first glance, the language of the limitation at issue—which, again, recites “the compressed air and the operative fluid mix together in said mixing chamber to form the fluid dispersion”—would seem to require the “fluid dispersion” (under the stipulated construction) to be fully formed in the “mixing chamber.” In other words, the language of the limitation alone would seem to support Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the “form the fluid dispersion” limitation. But the claim construction analysis does not end with consideration of the claim language alone. Next, we turn to the Specification. The Federal Circuit has said that the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, the discussion in the Specification of precisely the same language as in the limitation at issue strongly supports that “to form a fluid dispersion” in the limitation at issue requires only initial mixing of the compressed air and operative fluid in the mixing chamber, with further “formation” of the ”fluid dispersion” occurring downstream of the mixing chamber: More importantly, the “predetermined amount” of compressed air and the “preselected amount” of the operable fluid are initially mixed together in the mixing chamber 226 to form a fluid dispersion. The diffusion chamber 112" is further structured to facilitate the formation of a plurality of substantially uniform droplets, as defined hereinabove, in the fluid dispersion prior to discharge from the diffusion chamber 112" through discharge port 132. Ex. 1001, 10:62–11:2 (emphasis added) (discussing Figure 6), quoted, in part, at Pet. Reply 6–710; see also Ex. 1001, 5:64–6:4 (same language, except without double primes, in a discussion of Figures 1 and 2). To be sure, certain passages in the Specification could be read to indicate that a “fluid dispersion” must be fully formed in the “mixing chamber.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:11–12 (“More in particular, the suppression chamber 232 receives the fluid dispersion from the mixing chamber 226.”); see also id. at 7:22–33, 11:39–52 (both implying that a “fluid dispersion” is formed in the mixing chamber). But the passage block quoted directly above (and the similar one bridging columns 5 and 6) more directly addresses the issue at hand—i.e., the scope of “form the fluid dispersion”—by using the same” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“As an initial matter, the record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration for allegedly not reviewing the parties’ claim constructions. See Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1046, 115:15–18). Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1. Instead, we read Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also id. at 115:15–18 (“I don’t know if I would even apply claim construction. I applied engineering principles to a document that had been published with the patent office.”).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board ‘must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’”) (citation omitted). Based on the complete record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s asserted motivation boils down to the conclusory statement that given Goubet and Kaiser, ‘it was well known in the field at the time of the invention that droplets of greater uniformity result in uniform droplet evaporation.’” PO Resp. 31 (quoting Pet. 59). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s discussion of the alleged reasons to combine (Pet. 59) is insufficient to support the proposed combination here. See Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380. Specifically, we are not persuaded that Kaiser’s teachings—which relate to combustion (Ex. 1014 at 43)—would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the proposed modifications, which would allegedly “improve the smoothness (i.e., less harsh) of the aroma generated as the oil droplets evaporate in the surrounding airspace.” See Pet. 59 (emphasis added); White Pet. Decl. ¶ 251 (same); see PO Resp. 32 (“Rather, Dr. White merely describes the ability to achieve the effect as in the claimed patent, not why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would look to the field of electrospray injection and combustion in mesoscale power-generation systems, using high-voltage electric fields to generate charged fuel droplets for controlled combustion in catalytic micro-combustors when considering atomization for scents.”). For these reasons, we determine, in light of the complete record, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had reason to combine Goubet and Kaiser, as proposed. slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,583,449 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,583,449 - Under Armour, Inc. v. Athalonz, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00640 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 9–15, and 17 are unpatentable: claims 10, 11, 15, and 17 over Won, and claims 1–5, 7, 9, and 12–14 over Won and Talarico ’911.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree related to industrial or product design and at least two years’ experience designing or developing athletic shoes; or (2) at least five years designing or developing athletic shoes.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). According to Petitioner, “the claims are obvious in view of any reasonable definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 21. For institution, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 4. “For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 17–18). Patent Owner contends that its declarant Mr. Markison “far exceeds the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art” and, because he is registered as a patent attorney and licensed as an attorney, “can offer good faith and objective opinions on the issues in this proceeding.” Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 11–13, 17–30, 42–44). Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree related to industrial or product design and at least two years’ experience designing or developing athletic shoes; or (2) at least five years designing or developing athletic shoes.” Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30); Inst. Dec. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 30; Ex. 2008 ¶ 44.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner notes that, although claim 1 recites a heel platform made of a “first material” and a forefoot platform made of a “second material,” the first and second materials can be the same based on Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation in related litigation. Pet. 27 n.1 (citing Ex. 1012, 30–44). Petitioner applies Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation to the challenges of this proceeding “[w]ithout conceding alternative arguments.” Id. At institution, we were persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments and adopted a construction that the “first” and “second” materials are “different in some manner.” Inst. Dec. 7–8. Patent Owner responds that we should maintain the same construction and disputes Petitioner’s evidence that the “first” and “second” materials can be the same material. PO Resp. 15–19 (citing Pet. 27 n.1; Inst. Dec. 8, 12–13; Ex. 1012, Ex. E, 38, 52; Ex. 2014, 15). Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner should not be allowed to present new arguments or evidence in reply. Id. at 19–21. Petitioner replies that interpreting “first” and “second” materials to be different materials contradicts the plain language of the claims, the Specification, and Patent Owner’s infringement contentions. Pet. Reply 1–5 (citing Pet. 27 n.1; Prelim. Resp. 16–17; PO Resp. 16–18; Ex. 1001, 10:9– 19, 17:52–54, 21:64–22:4, 27:47–51, Figs. 43, 49, claims 1, 6; Ex. 1023, 47:1–48:1, 215:6–217:12, 224:13–225:19; Ex. 1025, 319; Ex. 1026). Patent Owner replies that Petitioner presents new arguments and evidence in reply. PO Sur-reply 5–9 (citing Pet. 27 n.1; Inst. Dec. 13; PO Resp. 16–21; Pet. Reply 1–3, 14 n.1; Paper 19). Patent Owner also argues that, even if Petitioner’s asserted new arguments and evidence are considered, they fail to support an interpretation of “first” and “second” Resp. 16–17; Pet. Reply 1–3; Ex. 1001, 17:50–54, 27:50–54, Figs. 43, 93; Ex. 1023, 215:6–217:12; Ex. 2014, 19–22)” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“4. Other Terms Based on the full record, express interpretation of other terms is not necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Patent Owner does not satisfy its “burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Evidence of how the inventor viewed claim terms can be useful in considering claim interpretation, and, thus, we agree with Petitioner that the exhibit is relevant. For the reasons stated below, however, we do not need to rely on the exhibit. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1024 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 11,510,456 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,510,456 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01235 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 6–11, and 14–16 on all proposed grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the §103 ground over Mañosa and Patel.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 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”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedPrinted publication not establishedMixed
“[T]here is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under § 42.108(c) or any other authority. . . . [T]he burden is on the petitioner to identify with particularity evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“May” expresses a possibility. The Specification reflects this interpretation of “may” when it states that “[i]n one embodiment, the organic material is not lyotropic. Thus, the organic material may not be a phospholipid.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill would understand from this that the organic material “may not be” a phospholipid if the organic material is not lyotropic. It follows that if the organic material is lyotropic, then the organic material may be a phospholipid. Reading the statement “[t]he organic material may not be . . . a phospholipid” (id. at 8:59–63) in light of the earlier stated possibility that the organic material may be a phospholipid if the organic material is lyotropic, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “may not be” as excluding phospholipids under some conditions, not under all conditions. Taking the Specification’s discussion about phospholipids as exemplifying the permissive nature of the word “may,” we are unpersuaded that in stating that “[t]he organic material may not be [PMMA], a polyvinylidene difluoride-containing polymer, such as [PVDF] or PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, or a phospholipid, such as [DHPE]’” (Ex. 1001, 8:59–63), the specification “contains a clear and unmistakable disavowal of the compounds PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE” and “disclaims the listed compounds” from the “organic material” of the claims under all conditions, as Patent Owner argues. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Moreover, the claims themselves limit the “organic material” only to the extent that it is “barocaloric cooling or heating agent” and can perform in the manner claimed. See Ex. 1001, claim 1, supra. As broadly worded, the claims do not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE per se from the group of organic materials employed by the claimed method. Adopting Patent Owner’s construction would impermissibly import a limitation (i.e., not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE) into the claims. For the reasons stated, at this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner’s broad construction of “organic material.” We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction whereby PMMA, PVDF, PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE are excluded from the scope of the claim term “organic material.” The parties are invited to address this issue further during trial, if desired. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner shows that (a) Mañosa (i.e., inorganic compounds such as Ni-Mn-In, Gd5Si2Ge2, and La-Fe-Co-Si) and (b) Patel (i.e., PVDF-TrFE- CTFE) teach materials exhibiting inverse BCEs. Pet. 59 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1007, pages 4–8; Ex. 1009, 1, 4–5; Ex. 1004 ¶ 108). In our view, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently shows (via the five reasons listed supra) why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the barocaloric cooling or heating agent of Patel for that taught in Mañosa, thereby reaching the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. Cf. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (U.S., 2007) (“The Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”)” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,230,656 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01137 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–7 and 9–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Our consideration of discretionary denials is guided by the Director’s Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued on June 21, 2022 (“Memorandum”).7 The Memorandum states that, consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Massimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential), “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memorandum, 3 (footnote and emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c. Discussion At this stage, we preliminarily determine Petitioner has shown that Nakajima teaches or reasonably suggests each element of claim 1, but we encourage the parties to develop the record regarding the meaning of “pivotal about an axis” as recited in Limitation 1[b][3][i] during the trial phase. As cited by Petitioner, from the closed position, for example, the Nakajima’s mouthpiece would appear to move based on clockwise rotation about hinge shaft 19. Pet. 35. Patent Owner appears correct that at some point in the opening (or closing) process, Nakajima’s mouthpiece additionally moves based on rotation about protrusions 25. Prelim. Resp. 44–45. At this stage, we preliminarily determine that such additional rotation is not foreclosed by the plain language of the claims.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). Patent Owner states that it applies the level of skill set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 35. At this stage, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’255 patent. D. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner contends that “adapted to” in independent claims 1 and 20 means “‘designed or configured to’ and is not satisfied by mere hypothetical capability.” Prelim. Resp. 36; see Prelim. Resp. 36–41. We address Patent Owner’s arguments below with our discussion of Petitioner’s Ribartis-based arguments. Based on the current record, however, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). E. Alleged Obviousness” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,676,255 - Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00180 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–14, 19, and 20 are unpatentable: Johnson anticipates claims 11–13 and 19; Sutton anticipates claims 11, 19, and 20; and Sutton with Fry renders claim 12 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner “does not dispute [Petitioner’s] proposed level of skill in the art” in this case. PO Resp. 9–10; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 37 (Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Stone, accepting and applying Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors 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) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’220 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“then save.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–56). According to Patent Owner, “[m]erely saving data is not enough.” Id. Petitioner disagrees, contending that Patent Owner’s proffered interpretation of “record” is inconsistent with the Specification, which “repeatedly distinguishes between ‘record’ and ‘measure’” and uses “‘record’ in connection with saving/storing and ‘measure’ in connection with sensing.” Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–34, 8:51–53, 11:61–62, 11:65–67, 13:5–6, 15:18–24, 15:41–45, 20:2– 6; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 13–19). Based on our review of the parties’ argument and cited evidence, we find that “record” means “save” and does not encompass “measure or capture” as Patent Owner argues. The Specification describes the act of measuring as being performed by various sensors or other devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:51–53 (“sensors for measuring”), 11:65–67 (“accelerometers . . . for measuring”), 15:18–24 (“Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) navigation device” for measuring distance traveled and an “EKG monitor” for “measuring the electrical activity of the user”). The Specification also expressly distinguishes the act of measuring from the act of recording when discussing how the location of a user is measured and recorded. The Specification states: The inclusion of GPS device 713 and accelerometer 715 in a single mobile device 700 allows device 700 to record athletic activity data in multiple workout settings. . . . If, . . . the individual is running outdoors such that the individual moves from one location to another, the GPS device 713 or recording of data therefrom (e.g., GPS device is always active, but recording is turned on and off) may be activated and used instead [of the data measured by accelerometer 715]. Id. at 19:59–20:6 (emphasis added). Even though GPS “is always active” and measuring the location of the user, “recording is turned on and off.” Accordingly, the Specification expressly distinguishes that act of measuring from the act of recording.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner persuasively contends that the Specification discloses at least six additional ways for a user to select an option to share athletic information that would be excluded under Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 53F, 53S, 53V, 54C, 77, 82, and accompanying text at 45:22–44, 46:23–28, 47:42–44, 47:63–48:15, 53:27–52). Petitioner also persuasively argues that portion of the Specification cited by Patent Owner fails to sufficiently express intent to limit the scope of “sharing option selection” to “a user command or confirmation.” Id. at 13 (citing Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Amer. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (lexicography requires “clear” expression of intent to redefine the term (emphasis omitted))). Patent Owner’s attempt in the Sur-reply to cite cases for the proposition that claims need not cover all embodiments is unavailing because we discern no clear intent in the Specification to limit the claim to one specific embodiment. For all these reasons, we reject Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “the sharing option selection” 8 and instead read it according to its plain meaning, which encompasses, for example, the 8 The phrase “sharing option selection” is introduced in element 11D, and we conclude that phrase carries the same meaning as it does in element 11E. selection of an option to automatically share athletic information in advance of a workout.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Patent Owner argues that Johnson’s device 601 “does not ‘record’ (i.e., measure or capture, and then save) athletic activity.” PO Resp. 23. Patent Owner contends that “Johnson’s device 601 merely receives and displays pre-recorded athletic activity data that it ‘receives’ from a separate ‘collection’ device” [501], which is the device that “records” the athletic activity. Id. at 24. Patent Owner argues that “writing” data to memory is not “recording” data because it “does not include capturing or measuring the athletic activity itself, only saving it.” Id. Patent Owner concedes that Johnson’s device 601 stores the user’s athletic activity. PO Resp. 24; Sur-reply 8. Patent Owner’s argument that Johnson fails to describe element 11C depends upon us ruling in its favor on the meaning of element 11C. As explained in Part V.A above, we reject Patent Owner’s argument that “record” as used in element 11C also requires the apparatus to “measure or capture” athletic activity. Accordingly, based on Petitioner’s argument regarding element 11C, which we adopt as our own, and the evidence cited in support, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Johnson describes the limitations of element 11C.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,232,220 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,232,220 - PTAB · Feb 28, 2024 · IPR2023-01238 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 11 are obvious over Van Vliet and Cable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review.1” slip op. at 2
- BurdenMixed
“Petitioner does not fully address this limitation. In particular, the Petition does not include a discussion of how the reels are connected to be fed from a manifold. See generally Pet. 26–27. Rather, the Petition argues that the hoses are stored on reels and that the hoses “are connected via fluid outlets 22 to receive fuel from [the] manifold.” Id. at 27. The Petition does say that the hoses are connected to the reels (id.), but does not attempt to establish any type of relationship between the reels and the manifolds. We further note that although indisputably Van Vliet’s schematic diagram shows flow passages through manifolds 36, 38 and hoses 24, nowhere do we discern where or how Van Vliet definitively discloses the reels 30 are connected to be fed from a manifold, as required by claim 1. Indeed, according to Petitioner’s own expert, one skilled in the art would understand that Van Vliet’s schematic diagram “is a high-level representation and is not intended to depict the physical appearance or form” of the system’s components. Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 n.138. At most, the diagram indicates the hose’s flow passage as wrapping around the reel. And, while Van Vliet describes that “hoses 24 are preferably stored on reels 30,” nowhere does it mention or otherwise suggest that the hoses are fluidly connected to the reels. Ex. 1004 ¶ 15. To the contrary, Van Vliet explains that “each hose 24 is connected to a fuel outlet 22 by a dry connection 60 and to a cap 26 by a dry connection 62.” Id. ¶ 22. In other words, Van Vliet’s hose 24 cannot be connected to reel 30 if the ends of the hose are connected to dry connections 60 and 62, which are not part of the reel. In that case, the hose’s flow passage does not run through the reel, and thus the reels 30 are not connected to be fed from a manifold, as required by claim 1. c) Conclusion For the above reasons, the Petition does not sufficiently identify how Van Vliet teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 1. 3. Claims 11 and 12 Similar to claim 1, claim 11 requires “a plurality of reels in the container, each said reel individually connected with the at least one manifold.” Ex. 1001, 10:64–65. The Petition relies on the analysis of claim 1 to address this limitation. Pet. 31–32. As noted above, the Petition does not attempt to establish a relationship between the reels and the manifolds, such as arguing that a reel and manifold in Van Vliet are connected. Thus, the Petition fails to show how claim 11 and its dependent, claim 12, would be anticipated by or rendered obvious over Van Vliet.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In this regard, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s “proposed construction ignores the[] express differences in the claim language chosen by the patentee.” Prelim. Reply 2 (citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[W]hen an applicant uses different terms in a claim it is permissible to infer that he intended his choice of different terms to reflect a differentiation in the meaning of those terms”) (citing Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004))). Had the patentee desired to limit the claims to fluid connections, the patentee could have used the explicit language throughout, instead of only in choice locations. An example of this is claim 1 where the claim requires the “reels are connected to be fed from the [] manifold.” Ex. 1001, 10:21–23. “To be fed” limits the type of connection to a fluid connection between the manifold and reel, while the word “connected” alone does not infer any particular type of connection.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“the motivation to combine “does not provide any reason in particular that is directed to motivating a POSITA to modify Van Vliet to have a fluid connection to its reels as in Cable.” Id. at 35. Patent Owner is mostly correct, as the majority of the section titled “Rationale and Motivation for Combining Van Vliet and Cable” is directed to aspects of Cable relied on for the dependent claims. However, this section also includes the following: “Incorporating Cable’s . . . reel configuration into Van Vliet’s mobile fuel delivery system would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 1752). Petitioner’s declarant testifies that Van Vliet and Cable describe similar systems for delivering fluid from a mobile trailer via hoses to multiple destinations. Further, the elements incorporated into Van Vliet from Cable are either already present in Van Vliet (e.g., reels) or were simple elements well-known in the art at the time of the ‘955 Patent. Incorporating Cable’s . . . reel configuration into Van Vliet’s mobile fuel delivery system would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Ex. 1003 ¶ 175. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s argument that using Cable’s reel configuration in Van Vliet’s system is a simple substitution that “merely involve[s] combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 175; Pet. 37.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,974,955 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00943 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8 and 14 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that: On or before 7/12/2017, [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, in electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately three years of experience or equivalent study in voice-controlled devices in smart home systems. Additional graduate education could 2 Neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to such objective evidence of nonobviousness. in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 18. We adopted this definition for the purposes of the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 4. We again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill as reflected in the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Absent a recitation of order, or an order mandated by grammar or logic, the steps of a method claim are not construed to require a particular order. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Patent Owner argues that the steps of claim 1, a method claim, must be performed in sequential order. PO Resp. 13–16. Without commenting on or conceding Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner contends that “the trial grounds meet this proposed construction.” Pet. Reply 24–25; Tr. 8:25–11:16. Our record does not reflect any indication that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring the sequential ordering of the method steps is not at least encompassed by the correct construction of claim 1. Because of this, and because Petitioner agrees that the arguments in the Petition meet this construction, we accept Patent Owner’s construction as correct for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s showing uses the same sound data to teach the “first sound data” of limitation 1.a and the “second sound data” of limitation 1.c. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s claim 5 describes the determination of a volume threshold based on the volume of the ambient audio signal in which characteristic form(s) (e.g., the name of the user of the media player) are present. Ex. 1006, 13:66–21, 14:28–30. However, the Petition describes using Fu’s “predetermined threshold” in combination with Hart-787’s device, which attenuates audio output of a device upon detecting a user’s utterance intended to gain the attention of the device, in order to “include adjusting the audio output volume of a wirelessly-linked audio-producing device when the voice-controlled device determines that the ambient noise level at the time a Ex. 1004, 2:22–37, 5:61–6:10, 9:18–25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24, 32, 54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89). Petitioner further proposes including a threshold that is advantageously based on the environment in which the device is operating as described in Fu, for example to respond to differing levels of noise at different times of day. Id. at 26, 29–30, 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:42–67, 14:28–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–53, 55, 58, 87, 91, 107–109). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments address the references individually instead of addressing the combination of the teachings proposed in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 8, 13–14; see also Dec. on Inst. 21–22, 23–24, 25–26. The Petition relies upon a combination of elements of Hart-787 with the predetermined threshold as taught in Fu and with establishing such a threshold based on the operating environment of a device as in Rosenberg. Pet. 26–31, 34–41. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s threshold is set at the time of the utterance in Rosenberg’s claim 5 and cites Petitioner’s declarant as “conceding” issues regarding how “Rosenberg’s volume threshold is determined.” PO Resp. 20–21. But this argument and the ostensible concession do not squarely address the proposed combination, which combines Fu’s teaching of an adjustment unit that “compares the volume of the ambient noise received . . . to a predetermined threshold” with Rosenberg’s teaching that such “a threshold may be ‘determined based on the volume of [an] ambient audio signal.’” Pet. 39, 40 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1006, 14:28–30). While Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner has not proposed using a predetermined/pre-set threshold or a previously established threshold based on environmental noise in the combination of Hart-787 with F[u] and Rosenberg” (PO Resp. 46), we find, on the contrary, that the Petition describes a combination based predetermined threshold” and on a threshold “determined according to an environmental noise level.” Pet. 29–30. Thus, we find Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds do not suffer from the issues Patent Owner argues are a consequence of the purported use of the same sound data for the “first sound data” of claim limitation 1.a and for the “second sound data” of claim limitation 1.c. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Fu’s teachings with respect to limitation 1.e’s “transition from a first state having a first volume level to a second state having a second volume level that is less than the first volume level” because these arguments similarly do not address the proposed combination. See PO Resp. 26–30. The Petition cites Hart-787 for attenuating the volume of an audio-producing device when a wake word is issued. Pet. 32–34, 43–44. The Petition cites Fu for adjusting volume of an audio-producing device if the level of ambient noise exceeds a predetermined threshold. Id. at 36–39, 44–45. Thus, even if Fu teaches only increasing the volume of an audio-producing device if the predetermined threshold is exceeded, the Petition relies on the combination of teachings of Hart-787 and Fu, and Patent Owner’s argument that neither reference teaches “decreasing a controllable appliance’s volume output when a previously established volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) does not address the combination proposed. Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner has not proposed modifying Fu to decrease a controllable appliance’s volume output when a volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) similarly does not address the combination proposed in the Petition. We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references. transmitted volume down control signals as the means for attenuating audio output, Petitioner contends that Hart-787 “broadly teaches” that a device transmits control command signals to the audio-producing device, relying on the testimony of its declarant. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 82), 43–44 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:67–2:7, 2:26–27, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). In addition, Petitioner shows that these control signals were well-known in the art and would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, supporting its showing with additional testimony from its declarant. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 10183, 2:39–47, 5:35–38; Ex. 10194 ¶¶ 3, 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 118). We conclude Petitioner’s evidence regarding the showing in Hart-787 is sufficient with respect to this point. Hart-787 describes altering a signal sent to the speaker to attenuate the audio from that speaker. Ex. 1004, 1:67– 2:1. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that using transmitted control signals to do this would have been known to one of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 82, 118. We consider Petitioner’s evidence regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Hart-787’s disclosure to be sufficient for the showing regarding the “causing one or more commands to be automatically issued to the controllable appliance to thereby cause” that appliance to transition to a lower volume level, as required in limitation 1.e. While Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant “concede[s] that Hart- 787 does not disclose or teach how its voice-controlled device decreases the audio output of the controllable appliance,” the cited portion of the” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,930,276 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,930,276 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Wrinkl, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00882 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Ji and Sarafa; the Board did not reach the Ji, Sarafa, and Oh ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredMixed
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that the arguments in sub-section 2 on pages 8–9 of Petitioner’s Reply are improper new arguments. Rather, we find these arguments properly elaborate on the Petition, in response to the proposed construction of “link” in Patent Owner’s Response. Although we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not include the phrase “quoted message identifier,” Sarafa explains that the quoted message cited in the Petition and the “quoted message identifier” are part of the same message package. E.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 83. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s citation of the quoted message in the Petition and then the quoted message identifier in the Reply is like if I have a patent to some kind of car and someone points to a Porsche and says, look, the Porsche has an engine, and then we argue about an engine, and then they come back and say, well, we're referring to the turbo charger in the engine in their reply, even though they never mention turbo charger, and said that's the key, it's like, well, we weren't on notice of that. Tr. 71:2–9. We find this unpersuasive. Patent Owner does not explain why a reply that cites a subcomponent of an item cited in the petition would necessarily go beyond properly elaborating on the arguments in the petition.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s proposed definition reasonable and consistent with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill identified by Petitioner. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that the level of skill it identifies differs very little from Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, and our analysis below would be the same under either party’s identified level of skill.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“In order to resolve the parties’ patentability dispute, we only need to resolve whether the correct construction of “link” requires using an address specifically (rather than data generally) to “point to” a message. We find the record lacks persuasive support for such a construction. Looking to the ’198 patent itself first, neither the claims nor the Specification says anything about “point[ing] to” a message or another resource. See generally Ex. 1001. The ’198 patent mentions “address” only once, and that passage refers to a person’s address, not a message’s address. Id. at 12:29–33. Additionally, Patent Owner does not cite any other intrinsic evidence, such as the prosecution history of the ’198 patent, supporting a construction of “link” requiring a message’s address. See, e.g., PO Resp. 10–12; PO Sur-reply 2–7.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ji and Sarafa. As explained below, Petitioner persuades us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Ji teaches automatic scrolling, and that Sarafa’s automatic scrolling would have beneficially complemented Ji’s. Pet. 21–22; Pet. Reply 14–17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–77; Ex. 1018 ¶ 47. Additionally, regardless of whether Ji teaches automatic scrolling in paragraph 92, Petitioner persuades us that Ji and Sarafa address similar problems related to tracking and understanding convoluted conversations in messaging systems. See Pet. 16–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64, 65, 70, 73, 74. As Dr. Cockburn testifies, Ji emphasizes the problem that users cannot quickly find and understand messages in complicated message streams. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 2); Pet. 16. Petitioner also persuades us that Sarafa addresses such problems, at least in part, by expressly teaching certain advantages of its scroll-back feature, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it advantageous to add Sarafa’s scroll-back feature to Ji’s system. See Pet. 18–19; 21–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74. For example, addressing the same problems discussed in Ji, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature would facilitate a user’s ability to understand a complicated conversation because “[m]aking available the context of a quoted message may benefit a user in understanding a quoted message by providing messages that were displayed before and/or after the quoted message so as to play the quoted message in context.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 90; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Similarly, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature “provid[es] additional context to users . . . , improving the user experience of quoted messages for its users.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 23; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. We find that these disclosed benefits would have provided compelling motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add Sarafa’s scroll back feature to Ji’s messaging system. Pet. 19–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73–77. Indeed, as Dr. Cockburn explains, “[s]ince Ji also quotes the original message in the reply, Sarafa would therefore be a natural complement to Ji.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 77.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 9,860,198 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,860,198 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Cellect, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00512 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 2 is unpatentable as obvious over Swift, Ricquier, and Suzuki; the Board did not reach the alternative ground involving Larson.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Neither party identifies any material differences between a skill level corresponding to approximately two years of professional experience in the field of imaging devices and approximately three years of professional experience in the field of visible optical imaging devices, or any difference in the field of imaging devices and the field of visible optical imaging devices. On this record, there is none. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is at the level of one who would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, or a related field, and approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of visible optical imaging devices.6 This definition is consistent with the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 6 We do not adopt Petitioner’s inclusion of the qualifier “minimum,” to keep the specified level of skill more definite.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We also are guided by the principle that we only construe claim terms if, and to the extent that, it is necessary for this proceeding. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party requests the construction of any claim term. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 12. Further, we do not find that any claim term requires express construction. III.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“Dr. Neikirk’s testimony is rational, and we credit his testimony over the testimony of Patent Owner’s inventor, who provides no explanation as to why it was purportedly unexpected that, as compared to CCD devices, a CMOS imager with remotely located processing circuitry requires no RFI shielding. For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not established that the alleged unexpected result would have been unexpected to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Further, even assuming the alleged unexpected result truly would have been unexpected to an ordinarily skilled artisan, Patent Owner has not shown sufficient nexus between the unexpected result and the claimed invention.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“Accordingly, there is no presumption of nexus, and Patent Owner has not separately proved the required nexus for the alleged licensing and commercial success. Thus, there is not a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence of licensing and the patented invention.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 9,186,052 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,186,052
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.