- Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 30, 2026 · IPR2021-01449 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Remand
Claims 3–5 are unpatentable; claims 1 and 2 are not shown unpatentable. Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over the applied grounds under the remand construction of “movement vector.”
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“was incorrect, vacated the Final Written Decision as to claims 3 and 4, and remanded the case to the Board to determine the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” and decide the outcome for claims 3 and 4 in accordance with that meaning. Atos, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2025 WL 1482404, at *5 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025); Paper 35 (“Federal Circuit Remand,” “Remand,” or “Fed. Cir. Remand”). Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s instructions, the Board authorized the” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“considered individually and together, have well-understood, common meanings to ordinarily skilled artisans as of the invention date, reflected by the ’174 patent’s specification and other evidence of record noted above. Accordingly, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” is “a vector indicating movement of an object.” 3) “operation indicator” Petitioner” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Dr. Kanellakopoulos’s explanation that angular momentum is not inherent to an object, and its computation requires an arbitrary choice of a point of origin that has no physical meaning in the context of vehicle motion, also supports Patent Owner’s position. Id. ¶ 71 (citing Ex. 2004, 262). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument, that angular momentum cannot be used to detect a vehicle turning, is persuasive. Id. We also find persuasive, as Dr. Kanellakopoulos explains, that Petitioner’s argument regarding the figure on Kleppner 234 is based on misinterpretation of the vectors in that figure. Id. ¶ 67 (explaining that Kleppner 233–234 does not depict a gravity vector).” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Kleppner does not disclose a rotation vector, a person of ordinary skill would have used the knowledge of a rotation vector (because it is a term of art) alongside Kleppner’s teaching, to arrive at claim 1. See Pet. Reply 11. This argument does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner does not explain which teaching of Kleppner a person of ordinary skill would have selected and combined with their knowledge of a rotation vector to yield the method of claim 1, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have recognized based on Kleppner that estimating the angle between a rotation vector and gravity vector could be used to detect a vehicle turning. Nor does Petitioner respond to Patent Owner’s assertion that Kleppner provides no rationale for estimating an angle of alignment between a rotation vector and gravity vector as a way of detecting a vehicle turning. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 65.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 9,846,174 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,846,174 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00605 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable over Gravesen and Brister; claims 7, 11, and 18–28 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest possible effective filing date (“POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a related subject, and one or more years of experience researching, developing and/or designing insertable medical devices, including, e.g., systems for implanting wearable medical devices such as cannulas, infusion sets, and analyte sensors, or equivalent experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 11 n.1. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On the full trial record, we again find that Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing is unwarranted. First, the intrinsic record does not support Patent Owner’s required “central” axis. Patent Owner argues that the Specification describes two inserter embodiments as having “rotors,” and those rotors have a central axis. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 29:25–28, 29:55–59, Figs. 32, 45). Patent Owner, however, fails to explain why those embodiments should be understood to limit the claims. For example, in Phillips, the Federal Circuit “expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Although the Petition does state that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of a ‘recess’ to include ‘an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room),’” the Petition does not specify what else is “include[d]” in this term, nor does it specify that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire interior of a housing. The Petition also does not invoke the Specification as demonstrating that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire housing.13 Pet. 64 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s belated proposal also conflicts with the language of the claims themselves. Independent claim 1 recites “a rotor disposed within the inserter housing.” Ex. 1001, 43:42. Dependent claim 7 narrows claim 1 by reciting that “the housing comprises a recess in which the rotor is received.” Id. at 44:11–12. If the interior of the inserter housing and the recess could be one and the same as Petitioner proposes, there would be no need for claim 7, because it would not further limit claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”); see also Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The concept of claim differentiation ‘normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.’”) (quoting Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, we decline Petitioner’s belated request to construe “recess” to include “an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder.” 13 We acknowledge that Petitioner argued that the entire interior of Gravesen’s housing maps to the claimed “recess,” but this was in the context of comparing the prior art to the claim as construed. Indeed, Petitioner asserted that “the space within [Gravesen’s] housing is an alcove.” Pet. 64– 65 (emphasis added). In sum, Petitioner did not timely argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “recess” includes an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder. We adopt the only construction Petitioner offered and supported in the Petition. In view of the above, we construe “recess” as meaning “an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room).”” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 10,945,649 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,945,649 - Pelican Biothermal, LLC v. Va-Q-Tec AGSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · PGR2021-00085 · APJ Barry L Grossman · PGR · Final written decision
The Board granted the motion to amend but held amended claim 64 unpatentable as anticipated by NanoCool 98596-type products and obvious over the cited combinations; all other amended claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that amended claim 64 is unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Non-Contingent Motion to Amend is granted for claims 64 and denied for all other amended claims; and” slip op. at 77
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“A. Status as Prior Art Is a Substantive Issue, Not an Evidentiary Issue. A motion to exclude is not an appropriate mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of evidence, such as whether a reference qualifies as prior art, or the proper weight that should be afforded an argument. See Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, Paper 113, 4, 8–9 (PTAB September 3, 2015); PTAB Consol. Trial Practice Guide 79 (Nov. 30 Mr. Zumwalt testifies that other NanoCool products, designated by product number 85430 and 98630, also have the same configuration as the 98830 product and are made by the same process. Thus, “the 98830, 85430, and 98630 products can be collectively referred to as ‘98830-type’ products all having the same relevant design.” Ex. 1030 ¶ 17. 2019) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact. A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence—arguments regarding weight should appear only in the merits documents.”); Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2017-02187, Paper 42,17 (PTAB May 21, 2019) (status as prior art “is a substantive issue, not an evidentiary issue.”) Thus, whether the NanoCool 98830 product is prior art is not the proper basis for Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude evidence concerning the NanoCool 98830 product.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Harber provide any analysis of the factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill, identified above, to support their conclusory statements. We give Mr. Harber’s conclusory testimony minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(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.”). Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to which we have been directed of the need for specific education or experience in biological or chemical technologies related to the claimed containers and inserts.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and at least two to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [insulated shipping containers] depending on education level.” Pet. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Exhibit 1002 is the Declaration testimony of Mr. Paul Haber. Mr. Harber actually states a slightly different level of ordinary skill. Mr. Harber testifies: The hypothetical POSITA would have: (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and have at least three to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [Insulated Shipping Containers][29]. Such a person may also have (ii) a higher level degree, such as a PhD and/or Master’s degree in engineering, or related sciences, and have at least two to three years of experience in designing and testing ISCs. 29 See Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. Ex. 1002 ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Mr. Harber also testifies that “[t]hese descriptions are approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,766,685 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,766,685 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00193 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10–18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Spenser and Spenser II; claims 9 and 19 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Spenser II provides that its cloth “has a thickness ranging from about 1 to 5 mm.” Spenser and Levi both teach a valve that has a diameter of 25 mm and 26 mm respectively when fully expanded. Accordingly, even if we were to assume a POSITA used the thinnest possible cloth in Spenser II, Petitioner’s proposed combination using the smaller Spenser 25 mm diameter (12.5 mm radius) expanded valve covered by a 1 mm cloth resulting in a 27 mm diameter (13.5 mm radius) valve…. From this we can conservatively estimate how much cloth is required for a cross-section of the proposed device (Acloth) by calculating the total area of a cross-section of the cloth-covered valve (π*(13.5 mm)2) and subtracting the area of a cross-section of just the valve (π*(12.5 mm)2). Acloth = π*(13.5 mm)2 - π*(12.5 mm)2 = 81.68 mm2 Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed combination requires 81.68 mm2 of outer cloth in a given cross-section of the device.” slip op. at 78
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“that the claims are not obvious over Spenser and Spenser II because Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any of its proposed prior art combinations disclose or render obvious a valve with a “sealing material” that is delivered “endovascularly.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner also argues Petitioner fails to prove that any of its combinations disclose or render obvious a “fibrous network” “in overlapping radial alignment with native valve leaflets.” Id. at 73. Additionally, Patent Owner contends that objective indicia of non-obviousness (also called secondary considerations) support a conclusion that the challenged claims are nonobvious. Id. at 2. Finally, Patent Owner contends that the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Buller, should be given little or no weight, because, Patent Owner argues, he has no expertise in the issues at hand. Id. at 90.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“that the claims are not obvious over Spenser and Spenser II because Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any of its proposed prior art combinations disclose or render obvious a valve with a “sealing material” that is delivered “endovascularly.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner also argues Petitioner fails to prove that any of its combinations disclose or render obvious a “fibrous network” “in overlapping radial alignment with native valve leaflets.” Id. at 73. Additionally, Patent Owner contends that objective indicia of non-obviousness (also called secondary considerations) support a conclusion that the challenged claims are nonobvious. Id. at 2. Finally, Patent Owner contends that the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Buller, should be given little or no weight, because, Patent Owner argues, he has no expertise in the issues at hand. Id. at 90.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 10,881,538 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,881,538 - Ford Motor Company v. Safe Driving Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01446 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 10, 12–14, 16, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable under §103; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“Our rules and Consolidated Trial Practice Guide are clear on this prohibition. And, the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide explains: “[w]here a party believes it has a basis to request relief on a ground not identified in the rules, the party should contact the Board and arrange for a conference call with the Board and opposing party to discuss the requested relief with the judge handling the proceeding.” CTPG 75. Thus, the Board identifies appropriate ways for a party to address matters that it considers to be beyond the specific procedures outlined in the rules. Merely submitting new evidence was not authorized by Board rules or guidance and Patent Owner did not seek authorization to file the new evidence. The facts warrant excluding Exhibits 2030–2032 and we grant the Motion. See CTPG 81.” slip op. at 83
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“underpinnings, why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner . . . must . . . articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418)). Nonetheless, “a disclosure that anticipates under § 102 also renders the claim invalid under § 103, for ‘anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.’” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982)); see also Application of Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974) (“[T]his court has sanctioned the practice of nominally basing rejections on § 103 when, in fact, the actual ground of rejection is that the claims are anticipated by the prior art. The justification for this sanction is that a lack of novelty in the claimed subject matter, e.g., as evidenced by a complete disclosure of the invention in the prior art, is the ‘ultimate or epitome of obviousness.’” (citations and footnote omitted)).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 9,047,170 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,047,170 - Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00686 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 15, 19, and 20 as obvious over Hildebrand and Van Ostrand; claims 1–3, 7, 16, and 17 over those references and Rosen; and claim 18 over those …
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Hildebrand and Van Ostrand with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed above, Hildebrand is directed to a system for monitoring the efficiency of an HVAC system to determine when there is a fault. See Section II.E.1, supra; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60. Using much of the same data as Hildebrand, Van Ostrand teaches a method to determine which stage in a multiple stage HVAC system failed. See Section II.E.2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–61. Van Ostrand further teaches that the “[typical] HVAC system include[s] multiple stages of heating and/or cooling capacity.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 4. Because Hildebrand is silent as to which stage of the typical system—which has multiple stages— has failed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have turned to Van Ostrand for that determination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–62. This modification would allow the Hildebrand system to detect which specific stage has failed. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 29–33. And because Van Ostrand represents a known method of detecting fault, it would have been obvious to use it to improve Hildebrand in a predictable way with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶ 63; see also KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 416–21. Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have added Rosen’s use of internet weather to the Hildebrand-Van Ostrand combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 115 (“Hildebrand and Van Ostrand are applied as I describe above with respect to Ground 1, with outside temperature over the Internet from a weather data provider. In my opinion, it would have been obvious to obtain outside temperature measurements from the Internet, thus replacing Hildebrand’s use of outside temperature sensors.”). Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have seen an advantage in avoiding the expense of obtaining, wiring and servicing an extra outside temperature sensor by obtaining weather information from the Internet as taught by Rosen. Ex. 1002 ¶ 120; see also Section II.F.1 (describing Rosen). Because it is undisputed that Rosen teaches using computer programming and network communications that were well-known and established at the relevant time period, there was a reasonable expectation of success. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“There is also no dispute that ym is the output from a computer model. See Pet. 69; PO Resp. 32. Again, that is consistent with Spalink, which defines item 310—which generates ym—as a reference model. Ex. 1008 Fig. 3; ¶ 75 (describing ym as the output of the refence model). Thus, there is no meaningful dispute that the comparison shown in Figure 3—which the Petition relies on—is a comparison between a first HVAC system and a model, not a second HVAC system as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, that comparison does not teach or suggest “compar[ing] the relative efficiency of the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system” as recited in claim 8. Petitioner’s arguments that the data in the reference model comes from other buildings is inapposite. Although Petitioner accurately describes how reference model 310 is based on “data 367 collected from different buildings” (Ex. 1008 ¶ 77), Petitioner has not shown that a computer model is a second HVAC system. Therefore, comparing the output of a building to a model based on buildings does not teach or suggest the necessary comparison between the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 57
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“claims 5 and 6. See Pet. 7 (listing of grounds), 45 (Ground 2 heading). However, the “Claim Mapping” section only discusses claims 1–3, 7, 15–17, and 20. Pet. 49–50. We noted this lack of mapping in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues as follows: The Institution Decision states “that the Petition omits any particular mapping for claim 5, 6, and 19” in the context of this Ground. (See Institution Decision, 20). Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petition makes clear that the claim mapping for these dependent claims is the same as in Ground 1, “with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source.” (See Pet., 49). Pet. Reply 21–22 n.3. However, the Petition does not support that argument. Instead, page 49 of the Petition—which is all Petitioner cites to—does not mention claims 5 and 6. Instead, the page Petitioner cites shows that Petitioner misleadingly cropped the quotation. The full quotation below shows that page 49 of the Petition does not list claims 5 and 6: CLAIMS 1, 7, 15 AND 20 Independent claims 1 and 15, and their respective dependent claims 7 and 20, are obvious in the same manner discussed in Ground 1, with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source. Pet. 49 (bold in original) (italics added to emphasize cropped language). Our rules require that “[t]he petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner did not do that with respect to” slip op. at 39
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“b) Our Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 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.”). Moreover, Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with Mr. Shahs’ direct testimony that clearly states that the HVAC system is broader then just the heating and cooling system and fan and includes other elements, such as thermostats and HVAC control systems. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 65 (“HVAC communications, and software, were widely known and understood.”). Applying Mr. Shah’s definition, the HVAC system as recited in claim 1 includes more than Hildebrand’s heating and cooling systems. Indeed, when discussing dependent claim 5, Petitioner argues that Hildebrand’s HVAC system also includes a thermostat. See Pet. 39. We do not find the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding in an ITC proceeding involving a different record (and different patent) to be persuasive. Although the ALJ considered Hildebrand, there is nothing in the excerpt of the opinion to conclude that he considered Mr. Shah’s definition of an HVAC system. See Ex. 1010, 475–76. Nor is it clear from the record that the ALJ considered contrary testimony from Patent Owner’s expert. Id. Hildebrand Figure 1 shows an HVAC system including heating and” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01218 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable on specified §103 grounds; claims 4–6 and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The ’567 patent is directed to a using a thermostat to detect faults in the HVAC system. See Ex. 1001, code (57). That aligns more closely with and HVAC control systems—than the one proposed by Petitioner—which focuses on energy controls. Compare Ex. 2002 ¶ 27, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31– 33. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s propose definition. However, we consider the parties’ positions to be substantially similar, and note that neither party argues that the level of skill is determinative to the outcome of the case. Accordingly, we would have reached the same factual findings and conclusions of law had we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We decline to find Dr. Palmer less credible based solely on his experience. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration for his opinions, provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. Moreover, we note that Mr. Shah and Dr. Palmer substantially parrot the Petition and Patent Owner Response, respectively. Such testimony is generally unhelpful. Testimony which goes into more detail and expands on the points made in the papers (but not going beyond the points made in the papers) is more helpful and, as a general matter, given more weight so long as it is consistent with, and supported by, the other evidence in the record.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 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 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - Sunspec Alliance v. Tigo Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2021-01287 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 12–13 are unpatentable; claims 14–16 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds fail to establish the required predetermined number of heartbeat skips or sensor-triggered skips.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree or similar degree in electrical engineering and one year of experience in the design of solar power systems, power control systems, and/or power safety systems” or “could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Dec. 6. Patent Owner does not appear to dispute this definition. See generally PO Resp; see also id. at 51 (employing Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in discussing Mr. Dunton’s testimony). In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner does not challenge but adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for a POSITA for the relevant time period.” Reply 1 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 28; Ex. 1030, 119:25–120:14). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We interpret the term “heartbeat signals” as “periodic signals.” The term “heartbeat” appears only once in the in the specification outside of the claims: “the ‘heartbeats’ of the ping are set at a high rate, such as 100 or even 1000 per second.” Ex. 1001, 18:7–13. The disclosure of “the heartbeats” having a “rate” defined in “per second” terms indicates that they are periodic, as is generally recognized for heartbeats, i.e. human heartbeats. The term “heartbeat signals” appears in the challenged claims in conjunction with the detection of an anomaly (claim 12, “wherein the controller detects an anomaly in heartbeat signals from the remote unit”) and in conjunction with “skips” (claim 13, “wherein the anomaly includes skips of heartbeat signals”; claim 14, “when the anomaly includes a predetermined number of skips of the heartbeat signals”; claim 15, “when skips of the heartbeat signals are less than the predetermined number”). Accordingly, the heartbeat signals allow for the detection of an anomaly therein, indicating that they are typically predictable, and for the detection of skips of heartbeat signals, indicating that they are periodic. In view of the specification and the claims, and the parties’ arguments, we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of “heartbeat signals” is “periodic signals.”” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Because patentee has acted as its own lexicographer, and because the ’321 patent specification is incorporated by reference into the ’770 patent specification (Ex. 1001, 1:7–37; Tr. 9:10–22), we adopt the construction: “Skips refers to the event of missing a communication or pulse.” Ex. 2005, 9:36–37. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the preamble of claim 12 is limiting. The body of claim 12 recites “photovoltaic panel” and thus refers back to the preamble, and other challenged claims use the term “photovoltaic panel” in the non-preamble portions of the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 20:51, 20:58, 20:67, 21:5, 21:10. Aside from the preamble issue, the parties do not dispute the meaning of “photovoltaic panel.” Accordingly, we need not expressly construe the term “photovoltaic panel” for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,256,770 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,256,770 - Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01209 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, and 9–25 are unpatentable; claims 5, 7, and 8 are not shown unpatentable, based on anticipation by Kim and obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“C. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, we interpret claims under the same standard” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Accordingly, Petitioner fails to establish that Kim discloses “determining that the individual is a driver of the vehicle based at least in part on acceleration, forces, velocity, the at least one location point, and time.”” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“nexus and therefore fails to establish that any alleged evidence of objective indicia supports a finding of non-obviousness. Accordingly, we give Patent Owner’s reliance on objective indicia of non-obviousness no weight in our obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 65
Patent outcomesUS 9,152,609 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,152,609 - Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01118 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–16, and 18 are unpatentable; claims 6, 9, and 17 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted prior art did not establish all limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Discussion Petitioner argues that Kim discloses every limitation of claim 1, and” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Discussion We begin our analysis by addressing Patent Owner’s asserted objective indicia of non-obviousness, and then turn to the merits of Petitioner’s specific obviousness challenges before us.” slip op. at 52
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“the combination of Kim and Baker discloses “comparing the at least one current geographic location to the first geographic location; setting the location of the individual to the individual is in an outside of the vehicle location, when a distance between the at least one current and the first geographic locations exceeds a predetermined threshold.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 6 would have been obvious based on Kim and Baker.” slip op. at 90
Patent outcomesUS 8,527,140 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,527,140
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.