- Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00476 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11 unpatentable, principally failing to establish distinct lead wiring lines.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We deny inter partes review, for example, where a petition fails to identify “with particularity” the challenges or evidence supporting them. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). For the reasons discussed below, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 7 Yoneda, JP2000267590A, published Mar. 19, 1999. Ex. 1011. 8 Tanaka, JP2004094020A, published Mar. 25, 2004, with exhibit including certified English language translation. Ex. 1012. 9 Hirosue, US 2003/0189686 A1, published Oct. 9, 2003. Ex. 1013. have either a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with three years of experience in the field of display technology or a master’s degree with one year of experience in the field of display technology.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41‒44). Patent Owner, “[f]or purposes of th[e] Preliminary Response . . . does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 7. On this record, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,335,913 - Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00475 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not sufficiently show that the counter-electrode potential line was one of the claimed main wiring lines coupled to peripheral driving circuits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). When challenging claims based on obviousness, the Petitioner must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The burden of persuasion, whether for anticipation or for unpatentability for obviousness, never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have either a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with three years of experience in the field of display technology or a master’s degree with one year of experience in the field of display technology.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38‒41). Patent Owner, “[f]or purposes of th[e]” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“5. Analysis Claim 1 recites “in a peripheral region of the image display region on the element substrate, a plurality of external circuit connection terminals, a plurality of main wiring lines . . . and peripheral driving circuits.” Ex. 1001, 21:55‒60. The plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase includes that the plurality of main wiring lines and peripheral driving circuits are formed on the element substrate. Claim 1 further recites, for the main wiring lines, “each having one end coupled to each of the plurality of external circuit connection terminals, and peripheral driving circuits coupled to the other ends of the main wiring lines.” Id. at 21:57‒59. The plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase is that each main wiring line is connected at one end to an external circuit connection terminal and, at the other end, to the peripheral driving circuits; this is how Petitioner addresses “a plurality of main wiring lines” as to this portion of claim 1 in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15 (“Figure 4 shows wiring lines coupled to the external connection terminals 102 at one end and coupled to peripheral circuits, including data line driving circuit 101, and scanning line driving circuit 104, at the other.”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 59. Petitioner and its driving circuit 104 as peripheral circuits. Pet. 15‒16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 78‒80, Fig. 4; reproducing Fig. 4 without annotation); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56‒59.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner fails, however, to address the clause, “which is at least one of the plurality of main wiring lines,” and the implication that follows from the plain language of the claim. Id. Specifically, as set forth above, the “plurality of main wiring lines” are coupled at one end to peripheral circuits, and Petitioner provides no basis for the wiring 400 (LCCOM) to be coupled to any element identified by Petitioner as a peripheral circuit. Id. at 15‒17 (identifying data line driving circuit 101 and scanning line driving circuit 104 as peripheral circuits). Rather, Petitioner sets forth that wiring 400 (LCCOM) “supplies potential from the external input terminal 102 to the vertical conduction terminal 106 and then to the counter electrode 21 on the counter substrate 20.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 85, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63‒65). Further, to the extent Petitioner states that Muraide “discloses a counter electrode provided in the peripheral region on a counter substrate that is arranged to face the element substrate” (id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 41; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60‒62)), Petitioner does not clearly identify the counter electrode as a peripheral circuit (id.) and, further, the counter electrode on the counter substrate is not a peripheral driving circuit on the element (“in a peripheral region of the image display region on the element substrate, . . . peripheral driving circuits” (emphasis added))). Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner fails to sufficiently establish “a counter electrode potential line that supplies counter electrode potential to the counter electrode, which is at least one of the plurality of main wiring lines.” Although Patent Owner did not clearly raise this particular issue, “[i]n an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). The burden of persuasion, whether for anticipation or for unpatentability for obviousness, never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Further, our role is not to remedy the deficiencies in Petitions that fall short. Sirona Dental Sys. GMBH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356–57 (2018)) (explaining that because “‘the petitioner’s contentions, not the Director’s discretion, define the scope . . . [,]’ [i]t would thus not be proper for the Board to deviate from the grounds in the petition and raise its own obviousness theory” “institut[ing] a different inter partes review”); cf. Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380–81 (rejecting an argument that the Board properly “ma[de] an obviousness argument on behalf of [petitioner]” that “could have been included in a properly-drafted petition,” because “petitioner . . . bears the burden of proof”).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,116,390 - Takeda Vaccines, Inc. v. Valneva Austria GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2023 · IPR2023-00354 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims before institution; it declined to enter adverse judgment.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer of the challenged claims, Petitioner correctly notes that the Federal Circuit in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018), construed Rule 42.73(b) as permitting the Board to enter adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all challenged claims prior to institution. Paper 6, 2‒3; Arthrex, 880 F.3d at 1350. Neither Arthrex nor Rule 42.73(b), while permitting us to do so, requires us to enter adverse judgment. In the present instance, and consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 253(a), Arthrex, Rule 42.107(e) and the Board’s precedential General Electric decision, we determine that a denial of institution is sufficient to dispose of this case. We acknowledge Petitioner’s request to treat the terminal disclaimer as a request for adverse judgment (see Ex. 3003), but determine that denying institution without entering adverse judgment against the Patent Owner is consistent with § 253(a), Rule 42.107(e), and General Electric, where there are no pending claims for us to consider following disclaimer of all challenged claims prior to institution of trial.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“disclaiming all challenged claims of the ’681 patent, and paid the requisite fees. See Ex. 3002; see also 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) (providing that a patentee may disclaim); 37 C.F.R. § 1.321 (setting forth requirements for statutory disclaimer). In particular, based on our review of Ex. 3002 and Patent Office public records, we are satisfied that a disclaimer of the challenged claims of the ’681 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been recorded in the Office as of March 21, 2023. See Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that a disclaimer filed under immediately “recorded” on the date the Office receives the disclaimer without any requirements of further action). Accordingly, we deny institution of the requested inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); see also General Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (“General Electric”) (denying institution of inter partes review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) based on disclaimer).” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 11,219,681 - Jupiter Research, LLC v. VPR Brands, L.P.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00299 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 13–18 were unpatentable over the asserted prior-art grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“It is the petitioner’s burden from the outset to show with particularity why a challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech. Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that regard, a petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged claims are unpatentable, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the relied-upon prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (a petition must identify “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for challenge to each claim”). A petition must also include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Here, Petitioner contends that the “airflow sensor having elements (401), (403), (404), (405), and (406)” is “electronic at least in that it includes contact piece (404) and piece (403) that is connected to the integrated circuit board (3),” but does not provide a detailed explanation of the significance of the location of contact pieces 403 and 404, or how elements 401, 403, 404, 405, and 406 form an electric airflow sensor. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1009, 8), 54–55 (same). Zhu teaches that “integrated circuit board 3 is provided with two fixed contact pieces 403 and 404 that extend toward the elastic ring 401.” Ex. 1009, 8. Zhu further teaches that elastic ring 401 is fixed in plastic base 405, and that “fixed contact pieces 403 and 404 are fixed outside the plastic base 405.” Id. Considering the disclosures in Zhu regarding the arrangement and operation of these elements, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that Zhu teaches an electric airflow sensor simply because contact” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or a closely related field and one to two years of experience working in the consumer electronics or computer industry in the capacity of a design, application, customer marketing or technical marketing engineer.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 58). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner neither responds to Petitioner’s proposed definition, nor provides a definition of its own. See generally, Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’622 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level 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 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The parties stipulated to the construction of many claim terms in their related litigation currently pending in the District of Arizona. Pet. 11–12; Prelim. Resp. 12; Ex. 1006. Based on the parties’ apparent agreement, and considering the record before us, we adopt the parties agreed-upon claim constructions for purposes of this Decision. See Ex. 1006 (stipulated claim construction proposed in the district court). We provide the constructions of “electric airflow sensor” and “detecting an airflow,” which are of particular relevance to this Decision, below. “electric airflow sensor” an electric sensor to detect air movement generated by a user’s inhaling or puffing act “detecting an airflow” determining that a user is inducing airflow into or out of the device Ex. 1006, 2, 3.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner neither directs us to an express disclosure in Cox that air flow detecting device 51 is an electric airflow sensor as required by claim 13, nor adequately explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Cox as disclosing an electric airflow sensor, and could have combined Cox’s disclosures with their own knowledge to make the claimed invention. See Helifix Ltd. v. Bloc-Loc, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A reference that does not expressly disclose a claimed limitation “might nevertheless be anticipating if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand [the reference] as disclosing [the limitation] and if such a person could have combined the [reference’s] description of the invention with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention.”). We also do not understand Petitioner to be arguing that Cox inherently discloses an electric airflow sensor. See In re Montgomery, 667 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference may anticipate inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed is ‘necessarily present, or v. Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010))). For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that Cox discloses “an electric air flow sensor that is used to turn on and off the electric power source by way of detecting an airflow” as recited in independent claim 13. Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claim 13, and claims 14 and 15 that depend therefrom, are anticipated by Cox.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,205,622 - Google LLC v. Ecofactor, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 18, 2022 · IPR2021-01578 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1–15 based on its holistic Fintiv analysis of the parallel ITC investigation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“requested a stay of the ITC investigation, and we agree with Patent Owner that a stay of the ITC investigation is unlikely given that post-trial briefing is completed. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of not instituting this proceeding.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Section 314(a) does not require the Director to institute an inter partes review. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). Rather, a decision whether to institute is within the Director’s discretion, and that discretion has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,886,488 - Gamber-Johnson LLC v. National Products Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 3, 2022 · IPR2021-01159 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, relying on the same-structure mapping and unsupported obviousness theories.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). When challenging claims based on obviousness, the Petitioner must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The burden of persuasion, whether for anticipation or for unpatentability for obviousness, 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 (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326– 27 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). D. Asserted Anticipation by Woud slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner neither contests Petitioner’s proposed definition nor proposes its own definition. See Prelim. Resp. On this record, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision, except that we delete the qualifiers “at least” and “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifiers expand the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus preclude a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art. B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim construction is not necessary when it is not “directed to, or has been shown reasonably to affect, the determination of obviousness”).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“support surface” (emphasis added). The structure Petitioner relies on as meeting the recited “female connector,” however, encompasses the entirety of the structure relied on as meeting the recited “docking support surface.” Compare Pet. 34–36, with id. at 33–34. As highlighted by Patent Owner, this raises a significant issue. See Prelim Resp. 24, 26–27. Our reviewing court explains that, [w]here a claim lists elements separately, “the clear implication of the claim language” is that those elements are “distinct component[s]” of the patented invention. Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a “return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”). There is nothing in the asserted claims to suggest that the hinged arm and the spring means can be the same structure. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Therefore, a single structure in Woud cannot be both the recited female connector and the recited docking support surface, nor meet the requirement that the female connector is disposed within the docking support surface where the entirety of structure relied on as the docking support surface is also the structure relied on as the female connector, as Petitioner contends. Petitioner offers no explanation or elements set forth in the claim. See Pet. Because we find Petitioner relies on the same structure for two distinct components of claim 1, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that it will establish by a preponderance that claim 1 is anticipated by Woud.5” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,706,026 - Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 18, 2021 · IPR2021-00851 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were obvious, chiefly failing to establish the required one-step nucleic acid extraction.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A party that petitions the Board for a determination of unpatentability based on obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “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) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have had (1) a Ph.D. in microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, or related discipline; (2) at least two years of post-graduate experience in the area of nucleic acid extraction and analysis; and (3) experience with the development or use of nucleic acid extraction formulations, and the literature concerning nucleic acid extraction and analysis. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, at this stage of the proceeding, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, which is not substantively opposed by Patent Owner and appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’330 patent. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“A party that petitions the Board for a determination of unpatentability based on obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “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) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,415,330 - Google LLC v. Ecofactor Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00982 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–7 and 10–30, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv based on the parallel ITC investigation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“involving the ’983 patent, Patent Owner correctly notes that Fintiv expressly addresses ITC investigations, and the Board has considered ITC investigations in weighing whether or not to exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 8 (“[E]ven though the Office and the district court would not be bound by the ITC’s decision, an earlier ITC trial date may favor exercising authority to deny institution under NHK if the ITC is going to decide the same or substantially similar issues to those presented in the petition.”); Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V, IPR2020- 00754, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 27, 2020); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., IPR2020-00800, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2020). In view of this, we consider the facts surrounding the ITC investigation for purposes of analyzing the Fintiv factors in this case. Specifically with regard to Factor 1, there is no evidence here that Petitioner has requested a stay of the ITC investigation, and we agree with Patent Owner that a stay of the ITC investigation is unlikely given the advanced stage of the investigation, including the fact that the hearing in the ITC investigation is scheduled to begin on December 13, 2021. Accordingly, we determine that this factor weighs against instituting this proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“the Fintiv factors. Because our analysis is fact driven, no single factor is determinative of whether we exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). Further, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Having evaluated all of the factors based on the arguments and evidence of record, in the exercise of the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review is not instituted. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 14
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,612,983 - PTAB · Oct 21, 2021 · IPR2021-00767 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 7–11, and 14–18 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“It is the petitioner’s burden from the outset to show with particularity why a challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech. Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that regard, a petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged claims are unpatentable, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the relied-upon prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (a petition must identify “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for challenge to each claim”). A petition must also include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Here, the Petition does not identify sufficiently where each element of claim 1 is found in GPS 1, and does not include a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had either “a Bachelor’s Degree in mechanical engineering or a related discipline and at least two years of experience in the design or development of interlocking products (e.g. docking cradles and adapters for portable electronic devices),” or “five years or more of experience in the design or development of interlocking products.” Pet. 10. At this stage of the definition, nor provides a definition of its own. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is undisputed on this record, except that we delete the qualifiers “at least” and “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifier, if not deleted, expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus would preclude a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure.2 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 2 Petitioner incorrectly states that claims in an inter partes review are to be construed using the broadest reasonable construction standard, which applied to proceedings filed prior to November 13, 2018. Pet. 10–11; see also 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,341 (Oct. 11, 2018) (adopting “the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts and the ITC, both of which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) and its progeny”). See Prelim. Resp.; Pet. 10–11. For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an explicit construction.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“Claim 1 requires that (1) the adapter comprises a contactor and male positioning interface; (2) the contactor comprises a contactor surface and a plurality of contacts exposed and arranged on the surface that are electrically coupleable to the electronic device; (3) the male positioning interface defines a rim surrounding, and in contact with, a perimeter of the contactor surface of the contactor of the adapter; and (4) the rim guides the proper mating of the contactor of the adapter to the external connector. Ex. 1001, 34:3–13. Petitioner identifies components in the images of the Flex 8 taken from GPS 1 that it purports to be an adapter comprising a contactor with contacts, but does not explain why or how those identified components meet GPS 1 from which we can identify, or discern the function of, any component of the device identified in those images. See Pet. 16–18 (Petitioner’s contentions regarding the adapter limitation of claim 1); see also Ex. 1003 (GPS 1, nowhere identifying any feature of the device by reference to the images). Additionally, Petitioner does not identify anything in the images corresponding to the recited “male positioning interface” or “rim surrounding, and in contact with, a perimeter of the contactor surface . . . to guide proper mating of the contactor of the adapter to the external connector” limitations of claim 1. It is the petitioner’s burden from the outset to show with particularity why a challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech. Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that regard, a petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged claims are unpatentable, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the relied-upon prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (a petition must identify “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for challenge to each claim”). A petition must also include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Here, the Petition does not identify sufficiently where each element of claim 1 is found in GPS 1, and does not include a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence. Specifically, Petitioner fails to explain with any particularity how or why the images reproduced above support its view that GPS 1 discloses “an adapter coupleable to a portable electronic device for mating with an states that “[u]nder PO’s theories of infringement, GPS 1 discloses these recitations” and provides the annotated images reproduced above. Id. Patent Owner’s infringement contentions, however, are directed to a different product (the ATMOS Temperature Controlling Cradle Kit for Samsung Galaxy TAB A 8" Product), and Petitioner does not explain how that product relates, if at all, to the Flex 8 depicted in GPS 1. Moreover, Petitioner’s citation to Patent Owner’s infringement contentions to support conclusory statements not otherwise supported in the Petition amounts to an improper incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). The Petition, therefore, falls short of adequately establishing the identity or function of any component in the images of the Flex 8 from GPS 1. Petitioner states that, although the Petition primarily focuses on GPS 1 because “webpages are most easily reproduced” therein, “the same analysis applies to each of the AP Publications.” Pet. 16. As was the case with Petitioner’s challenge based on GPS 1, the Petition fails to explain with any particularity how the products depicted in GPS 2, GPS 3, and GPS 4 support its view that GPS 2, GPS 3, and GPS 4 each discloses “an adapter coupleable to a portable electronic device for mating with an external connector” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 18–21. Petitioner provides two still images from each of GPS 2, GPS 3, and GPS 4, which appear to show the Flex 8, without annotations or further explanation. Id. The Petition, therefore, also does not identify sufficiently where each element of claim 1 is found in GPS 2, GPS 3, and GPS 4. establishes that any of the AP Publications discloses the recitations of claim 1 directed to “an adapter coupleable to a portable electronic device for mating with an external connector.” Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 7–9 that depend directly or indirectly therefrom, are anticipated by the AP Publications.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,630,334 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2021 · IPR2021-00622 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 4, 8–11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 were unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring inter partes review petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had (1) a Bachelor’s Degree in mechanical engineering or a related discipline and at least two years of experience in the design or development of interlocking products” or “(2) five years or more of experience in the design or development of interlocking products,” where exemplary “interlocking products” include “docking cradles and adapters for portable electronic devices.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 21–23, 60–62). Patent Owner neither contests Petitioner’s proposed definition nor proposes its own definition. See Prelim. Resp. On this record, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision, except that we delete the qualifiers “at least” and “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifiers expand the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus preclude a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim construction is not necessary when it is not “directed to, or has been shown reasonably to affect, the determination of obviousness”). Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this inter partes review, no claim terms require construction.” Pet. 17. Petitioner further contends, however, that “in some instances, Petitioner relies at least in part on [Patent Owner’s] own interpretations of its claims in [Patent Owner’s] own Infringement Contentions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1021). Patent Owner does not offer any interpretation of claim terms (see Prelim. Resp.), although it does argue Petitioner erred in misstating the applicable standard of “broadest reasonable construction” (id. at 20, 21–22, 26–28; Pet. 16–17 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b))). On this record, and for purposes of this Decision, we decline to construe any claim terms beyond the limited extent we do so below in our” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s reliance on Centocor is not well founded, as it pertains to the prima facie case of acquiescence estopping the patentee where the Examiner has “issued a clear, unambiguous, and final § 112 rejection” for “new matter” and the patentee has “conceded the correctness of the rejection by filing a CIP application in response.” Centocor, 662 F. Supp. 2d at 591; see also Litton, 728 F.2d at 1438 (holding that patentee filing a continuing application as a continuation-in-part implied that it did add new matter and patentee was estopped from contrary arguments). Petitioner offers no explanation or reasoning why we should treat prior art rejections overcome by claim amendment in the same manner, let alone legal authority supporting that position. See Pet. Petitioner’s failure to identify any authority for a more expansive doctrine of acquiescence that extends to prior art rejections, as it seeks to apply here, is unsurprising. A “patentee is not required to fight tooth and nail every possible adverse thought an examiner commits to paper, nor to advance redundant arguments for patentability.” TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharms., Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Our reviewing court further explains TorPharm as holding “that the applicant’s ‘acquiesence’ in the obviousness rejection by amending its claims did not preclude the patentee from contesting obviousness in litigation.” Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing TorPharm, 336 F.3d at 1331). Specifically, “[i]n TorPharm, the applicant added limitations to claims to overcome an obviousness rejection” and, “[l]ater during litigation, the defendant . . . showed that the added limitation was also in the prior art” and then argued that “the patentee could not challenge its obviousness contentions.” Id. That appears on all fours with the circumstances that Petitioner contends, contrary to TorPharm, estops Patent Owner here. Further, while “an examiner’s reasoning and findings are highly relevant to the validity inquiry[,] . . . they are not beyond challenge and they do not in every case automatically preclude the existence of a dispute of material fact.” TorPharm, 336 F.3d at 1329. In any event, Petitioner does not direct us to anything here that constitutes an admission by the applicant as to the scope of a claim or the teaching of the prior art. See Pet. 23–26. As discussed above, contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, an applicant’s decision during examination to amend claims rather than argue against the Examiner’s assertions is not itself an admission.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,706,026
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.