• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,846,174
• Recor Medical, Inc. / Otsuka Medical Devices Co., Ltd. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2025 · IPR2022-00431 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1–3 and 8–12 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit (Paper 33), which vacated the original Final Written Decision and remanded the proceeding to the Board. See ReCor Med., Inc. v. Medtronic Ir. Mfg. Unlimited Co., No. 2023-2251, 2025 WL 944511 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2025) (“the Appeal Decision” or “Appeal Dec.”); see also Paper 41 (copy of the Appeal Decision). The Federal Circuit’s mandate issued on May 5, 2025. See Paper 40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6, and we issue this Final Written Decision on Remand under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons below, on the complete record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unpatentability of claims 1–3 and 8–12 of the challenged patent, and we conclude that Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unpatentability of claim 4.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentable

    “and Petitioner’s rebuttal evidence. Objective evidence of nonobviousness, when present, must be considered as part of an obviousness inquiry. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of nonobviousness, may lead to a conclusion that one or more of the challenged claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 50

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “1. Claims 1–3 and 8–11 Because the obviousness ground based on Levin and Acker is dispositive as to challenged claims 1–3 and 8–11, we need not reach this additional ground as to those claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018) (holding that a petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Boston Sci. Scimed, analysis in the appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Appeal Dec. *1–*2 (summarizing grounds at issue on appeal and not discussing anticipation based on Acker). Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (stating that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding,” such as “alternative arguments with respect to claims [the Board] found unpatentable on other grounds”); SK Hynix Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2017-00692, Paper 25 at 40 (PTAB July 5, 2018) (determining all challenged claims to be unpatentable and not addressing additional grounds). 2. Dependent Claim 4 As to dependent claim 4, in the context of this ground, Petitioner relies on Acker as to the additional limitations in claim 4 in the same manner as relied on in the context of the ground based on Levin and Acker. See Pet. 73 (“The combination teaches this element for the same reasons described in [the obviousness ground based on Levin and Acker], claim 4, with the exception that [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated based on his or her knowledge of prior renal denervation work, as noted above.”). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above (see § II.C.3.c), we determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 would have been obvious based on Acker and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. G. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 12 Based on Acker, the Knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Yock Petitioner asserts that claim 12, which depends from independent claim 1, would have been obvious based on Acker, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and Yock. Pet. 12, 75; Pet. Reply 35–36. Patent Owner provides arguments addressing this ground. PO Resp. 57–60; PO” slip op. at 75

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “1. Independent Claim 1 Petitioner contends that Acker discloses each limitation of claim 1. Pet. 61–63; Pet. Reply 35. In the “Overview of the Ground” section, Petitioner references its proposed construction of the phrase “configured to” and states that “it is proper to consider whether the prior art is ‘capable of’ performing the recited functions, as opposed to requiring that a designer of a prior art device have actually conceived of the recited functional language.” Pet. 61. Petitioner continues: “If the PTAB agrees that this is the proper approach to claim construction, then Acker also anticipates the claims challenged in this ground.” Id. For the reasons below, we determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Acker. As to element 1d, which includes the phrase “configured to,”16 Petitioner states that Acker is capable of being used to target renal neural fibers outside of the blood vessel to thermally induce modulation of target neural fibers while protecting non-target tissue in the blood vessel wall from thermal injury for the reasons discussed under claim 1, limitation [1d] and in the section entitled “Reasonable Expectation of Success”, beginning on page 37 [of the Petition]. Pet. 62–63 (citing Daft Pet. Decl. ¶ 179) (first bracketed text added by Petitioner). Patent Owner argues that, in the context of this asserted ground based” slip op. at 71

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,629 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,629
• Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00290 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 11–17, 21, 22, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, and 42–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4 and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we deemed the differences in the parties’ proposals not material due to their substantial overlap, adopted Patent Owner’s proposal for purposes of that Decision, noted that the outcome of the Decision would not change if we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, and instructed the parties to “explain the differences and their relevance to the patentability issues in this case, and state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences” if either party continued to propose differing proposals during trial. Inst. Dec. 10–11. After institution, neither party has explained the materiality of the differences in their proposals or argued that any issues in this case turn on those differences. Based on our review of the parties’ proposals, we find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of skill exemplified by the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’223 patent. Accordingly, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal in our analysis in this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“[T]he prior art itself” may reflect an appropriate level 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))). The outcome of this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “persuasive and reject Patent Owner’s argument that we should construe the limitation as requiring the absence of one parameter from the display prior to the replacement and the absence of the other parameter after the replacement. We do not view either requirement proposed by Patent Owner as justified based on our review of the claims, specification, and prosecution history.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner Petitioner proposes with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 9–30. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes.” slip op. at 58

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “proposed combination based on the argument that a POSITA would have been motivated to switch the layout responsive to a parameter value changing. Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–40, 47–52). For example, we agree with Petitioner that a motivation exists to change the layouts to “best suit the condition of [the] patient” because Naghavi expressly describes an “interactive and dynamic” GUI that “may automatically detect changes in health status . . . and automatically react and rearrange the available options to best suit the condition” of the patient. Ex. 1005 ¶ 63. The supporting expert testimony persuasively relies on this aspect of Naghavi when concluding that “such a change in the severity of a parameter can indicate a change in the patient’s health that may require close monitoring” and a POSITA “would have been motivated to implement this approach of the combination in order to achieve” Naghavi’s objectives. Ex. 1003 ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 63); see also Pet. Reply 23 (“[T]he rearrangement of parameters, as already suggested by Naghavi and implemented according to Hochstedler, advantageously ensures an easy-to-use user interface, e.g., by highlighting information that has changed to warrant user attention.” (citing Pet. 13–14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–43)); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–43.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 8,190,223 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,190,223
• Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00290 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 11–17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, and 42–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we deemed the differences in the parties’ proposals not material due to their substantial overlap, adopted Patent Owner’s proposal for purposes of that Decision, noted that the outcome of the Decision would not change if we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, and instructed the parties to “explain the differences and their relevance to the patentability issues in this case, and state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences” if either party continued to propose differing proposals during trial. Inst. Dec. 10–11. After institution, neither party has explained the materiality of the differences in their proposals or argued that any issues in this case turn on those differences. Based on our review of the parties’ proposals, we find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of skill exemplified by the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’223 patent. Accordingly, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal in our analysis in this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“[T]he prior art itself” may reflect an appropriate level 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))). The outcome of this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes discloses all of the limitations in claim 1. b. Motivation to Combine After summarizing its proposed combination, Petitioner provides a number of reasons for combining the references. Pet. 9–17. Petitioner breaks its motivation to combine arguments into three separate categories that we address below. See id. at 13–17. Patent Owner raises a number of arguments in support of its contention that “a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the references to replace a measured value of one parameter with the measured value of another parameter,” which we address in the context of Petitioner’s arguments below. See PO Resp. 44–57. Many of Patent Owner’s arguments rely on Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions for “replaced” and “measured value,” which we do not adopt for the reasons discussed above. For example, the first sentence in Patent Owner’s argument contends that “Naghavi, Hochstedler and Burnes do not disclose using the same screen area to display two currently measured parameters,” but we do not read the claims as requiring the display of “two currently measured parameters” consistent with Patent Owner’s construction for “measured values.” See id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2042 ¶ 125). Such arguments lack weight given that we have rejected their premise, and although Patent Owner’s arguments are suffused with references to its claim constructions, we attempt to identify where Patent Owner does not rely on those constructions in our analysis below.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 8,190,223 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,190,223
• Pioneer Pet Products, LLC v. Oil-Dri Corporation Of AmericaSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2022-01138 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–8, 10–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Goss; claims 2, 9, 17, and 19 were not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “To prevail in its challenges, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burdens of proof in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(“PHOSITA”) “would have at least a bachelor of science degree in chemistry, mineralogy, geological science, material science, chemical engineering, or mining engineering with at least two to five years of work experience relating to designing specific chemical mixtures including clay or other minerals, particularly absorbents.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 23. We adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner because it appears consistent with the record, including the prior art. See GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “We generally agree with Petitioner that the assumptions and approximations made in the calculations described in the ’397 patent to determine the external surface area of the components of the litter render the computations only a general approximation of the respective surface areas. See Pet. Reply 9–12. We need not, however, reach the issue of whether the 47% surface area limitation requires the use of the multi-step method disclosed in the ’397 patent because Petitioner followed that methodology in its arguments and evidence in its Reply. See Pet. Reply 13. Importantly, Patent Owner agrees that Petitioner followed the approach set forth in the ’397 patent, and argues that we need not construe “external surface area” to resolve any dispute between the parties. See PO Sur-reply 23–24 (arguing that we need not “determine whether ‘total external surface area’ must be determined using the same multi-step approach” in the ’397 patent to resolve the controversy because “the only calculation of external surface area relied on by Petitioner was presented in the Reply and it followed the methodology of the [’]397 Patent”); PO Supp. Sur-reply 2 (same). Based on our review of the current record, we need not and do not formally construe any claim terms to resolve the patentability issues in this inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))). To the extent some implicit claim construction disputes remain, we address those issues in the context of the challenges below.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “review of the record, we find that Petitioner fails to articulate an adequate rationale for the combination of Goss and House. The Petition contains only a single sentence addressing the issue, without any citation to record evidence or declaration support. See Pet. 46. In addition, the assertion merely states the conclusion that a “PHOSITA would understand that there is a rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Goss and House as required under patent law because both are related to cat litter having similar characteristics.” Id. This assertion, at most, addresses the fact that Goss and House are in the same field or that they are analogous art, but does not explain why a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine Goss and House. See id. In addition, the Petition lacks sufficient explanation of how Petitioner proposes to combine Goss and House. See Pet. 46–53. Instead, when Petitioner relies on House in this challenge, it appears to be a back-up argument in the event that we find Goss fails to disclose the limitation. Merely stating that Goss and House both disclose a limitation does not explain which aspects of House Petitioner proposes adding to Goss or what the resulting litter composition would look like. See id. The details of the resulting litter based on the combination of Goss and House matter here because it could impact whether all limitations of a given claim are satisfied by the combination. For example, Petitioner relies exclusively on specific examples from Goss for the 47% surface area limitation, but adding some aspects of House’s litter components to meet other limitations could undermine Petitioner’s reliance on Goss’s specific examples. The failure of the Petition to set forth a specific combination elides these issues. See Pet. 46–51. Petitioner’s Reply arguably addresses some of these concerns by providing a more fulsome motivation section, backed by new expert testimony, and specific litter examples based on Goss and various cellulose filler materials allegedly disclosed by House. See Pet. Reply 24–25 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 7); see also PO Sur-reply 18–22 (arguing that Petitioner’s Reply still fails to articulate an adequate motivation to combine). This analysis goes far beyond the limited analysis in the Petition, and Petitioner provides no reason why it could not have been included in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 24–25. As noted below, in some situations petitioners should be afforded the opportunity to go beyond the arguments in a petition when addressing a new claim construction or other new argument raised by a patent owner or an” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 11,026,397 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,026,397
• Amcol International Corp. v. Oil-Dri Corporation Of AmericaSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · IPR2022-01107 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–8, 10–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable over Goss; claims 2, 9, and 17 were not shown unpatentable, and the revised motion to amend was denied for lack of written description.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering or an equivalent degree and sufficient work experience in animal litter process development. A bachelor’s degree is not explicitly necessary.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that “[h]ands-on experience in the field of animal litter process development could substitute for possessing a degree if that individual’s experience is in contributing to and/or leading the process development effort rather than following a set of instructions given to them.” Id. at 4–5. Petitioner asserts that such a person “should have familiarity with the process of validating relevant test methods and qualifying analysts as well as familiarity with the composition and chemistry of various clays used in animal litter (including sodium bentonite)” and that such a person “would have gained this familiarity through education, training and/or experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner because it appears consistent with the record, including the prior art. See GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner makes a number of arguments, but we do not find them persuasive enough to undermine Petitioner’s showing based on Ms. Borgese’s analysis. Patent Owner’s primary argument stems from its assertion that the bulk densities vary depending on a number of variables and that Ms. Borgese bases her ranges on documents, the technical data sheets for FS-40 and the ’397 patent for BL(2), that have bulk densities that are not the “same” as the bulk densities for FS-40 and BL(2) in Goss due to the passage of time, differences in where the clay was mined, how the clay was processed, and how the bulk density was measured. See PO Resp. 18– 19, 21–33; PO Sur-reply 2, 5–9. We do not view Petitioner’s challenge as based on the premise that the FS-40 clay referenced in the technical data sheets and Blue Mountain clay in the ’397 patent are the exact same as the FS-40 and BL(2) clays in Goss, but instead the clays and their bulk densities are similar enough that they will fall within the bulk density ranges Petitioner uses in its calculations. See Pet. 21–23, 68; Pet. Reply 6–7, 10. As a result, Patent Owner’s repeated assertions that the clays or their properties are not the “same” or processed “exactly the same” fail to engage 5 Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner fails to meet the inherency standard because Ms. Borgese uses the term “potential” when describing the bulk density range of BL(2). See PO Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 117). We do not read Ms. Borgese’s opinion in the same manner. Instead, we read the reference to “the potential bulk density range of BL(2), 35–47 lbs/ft3” as referring to any bulk density within that range, not that there is only the mere potential that the bulk density may fall within that range. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 117. Petitioner’s argument that the bulk densities were at least similar, such that that they fall within the ranges Petitioner uses. See, e.g., PO Resp. 4, 21–24, 30–31; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 97–98 (Dr. Johnston limiting opinion to whether the clays are the “same”). As an example, when asked about the potential differences in bulk density between Goss’s filing date in 1997 and the 1999 technical data sheet, Ms. Borgese states that “[b]entonite clays have not changed significantly in a period of two years.” Ex. 2008, 24:7–15; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 202–203 (opining that “modest difference in particle-size distribution between FS-40 disclosed in Goss [and] . . . the FS-40 Information Sheet ’99 only minimally impacts the bulk density”). Given Ms. Borgese’s personal experience making animal litters and using bentonites, we view her testimony as credible absent some evidence that any differences in bulk density would fall outside the ranges she uses. Patent Owner provides no such evidence. Nearly all of Patent Owner’s evidence goes to whether the clays and bulk densities would be the exactly the “same” in Goss as in the sources that Ms. Borgese relies on, and do not address how similar the bulk densities would be and do not attempt to establish that there are bulk densities for Goss’s FS- 40 and BL(2) clays that would fall outside the ranges Ms. Borgese uses. In the rare instances where Patent Owner does argue that the bulk densities would not be similar, or would not fall within Dr. Borgese’s ranges, Patent Owner fails to cite any evidence to support the assertion. See PO Resp. 23, 32–33. Even if we found Dr. Johnston’s testimony generally credible on the point that bulk densities may differ across time even when mined and” slip op. at 28

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “persuasiveness of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. Petitioner relies heavily on Ms. Borgese’s testimony, a chemical engineer with “firsthand experience in animal litter Process Development and Product Development creating animal litter from raw materials.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3–4. Ms. Borgese has experience working with bentonite and fillers, and has validated test methods related to “particle size distribution, bulk density, moisture, [and] clump strength.” Id. ¶ 4. She also “used a variety of processing methods to produce animal litter” and is a named inventor on three animal litter patents. Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Ms. Borgese’s qualifications, does not 4 As to the whether Goss inherently discloses the 47% surface area limitation, Patent Owner does not dispute that Goss inherently discloses the limitation if Petitioner’s bulk density ranges are correct. See PO Resp. 15– 33. argue that she lacks firsthand experience that would enable her to testify as to the properties of the bentonite clays and litters at issue in this case, or otherwise dispute that she meets the parties’ agreed-upon definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 4–5; PO Resp. 14. That definition presumes “experience in animal litter process development” and “familiarity with the composition and chemistry of various clays used in animal litter (including sodium bentonite).” Pet. 4–5. We find Ms. Borgese’s education and first-hand experience in animal litter process development, including experience with bentonite, sufficient to testify credibly as to the known bulk densities of the bentonite clays at issue in the case. As to Goss’s FS-40 sodium bentonite clay made by Wyo-Ben, Ms. Borgese opines that the range of bulk density for the material in Goss is between 58–64 lb/ft3 based on Wyo-Ben’s own technical data sheets from 1999 and 2002, which “describe the same (or similar) FS-40 (‘sodium bentonite’) composition.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–83, 106, 117; Pet. 21–22, 35. Then, in an effort “to be conservative in [her] analysis,” Ms. Borgese uses a broader range of 55–65 lb/ft3 for Goss’s FS-40 in her calculations. Ex. 1003 ¶ 117. Even when pushing her assumptions in directions that would result in the lowest possible external surface area percent for sodium bentonite, all of the calculations across the full range of potential bulk densities still meet the 47% surface area limitation. Id. ¶¶ 117–122; Pet. 43–46. Based on our review of the arguments and evidence, we find Ms. Borgese’s testimony as to the range of Goss’s FS-40 bulk density credible and persuasive.” slip op. at 25

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Borgese relies on (Exhibits 1018 and 1024), but the effort lacks procedural and substantive merit. Patent Owner’s argument in its Patent Owner Response describes the documents as “[i]nadmissible” without seeking any specific relief, but Patent Owner’s Sur-reply makes clear that Patent Owner seeks exclusion. See PO Resp. 20; PO Sur-reply 13. While Patent Owner seeks to exclude these documents, it fails to follow our rules applicable to such efforts. Our rules require objections to evidence to be filed within specific timeframes, and a “motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any objection.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). In addition, the “motion must identify the objections in the record in order and must explain the objections.” Id. Patent Owner failed to file a separate “motion” or even refer to its hearsay arguments as a “motion” despite the fact that it seeks to exclude evidence. PO Resp. 20. Nor did Patent Owner “identify the objections in the record” in support of its “motion.” Id. In addition, Patent Owner fails to cite any authority that permits what amounts to a motion to exclude within the confines of the merits briefing, which forced Petitioner to devote space in its merits brief to opposing the motion to exclude. See id.; Pet. Reply 19–23. Under these circumstances, we deny the motion as procedurally improper. In addition, even if we reached the merits, we would not exclude the documents or Ms. Borgese’s opinions based on them given that she reasonably relied on the technical data sheets as reliable sources of bulk density data provided by Wyo-Ben, the manufacturer of the clays in question. See Pet. Reply 22–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–83.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 11,026,397 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,026,397
• Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. American Wave Machines, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01033 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, and 16–18 are unpatentable as obvious over McFarland and Chutter; claims 3–6, 8, and 12–15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “pools would have “knowledge and familiarity with: (i) design of mechanical structures and (ii) fluid characteristics and the interaction of fluid forces upon mechanical structures,” and that this knowledge “could be obtained by: (i) successfully completing a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering or (ii) at least 5 years of experience in a job working with control systems, including designing or implementing such wave generation machines.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 36–37). AWM does not contest that assertion. See PO Resp. 2 (“it will be assumed that a PHOSITA has a background and the level of skill described in Petitioner’s definition”). We see no reason to deviate from WhiteWater’s proffered level of skill in the art. Thus, we adopt WhiteWater’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “We need not expressly construe the disputed “controller” limitation because, as discussed below, WhiteWater prevails in its challenge of claims 1, 11, and 16, even assuming AWM’s proposed construction is correct. 2. “the delay . . . is a fraction of the chamber period” AWM construes this claim limitation to mean that the delay is “a portion of the whole chamber period,” in other words, a time period “less than the whole chamber period.” PO Resp. 6–7. WhiteWater, in turn, contends that the term “fraction” is not limited to “something ‘less than a whole’” and can be represented simply as a “quotient of two numbers.” Pet. Reply 5. We need not expressly construe term “fraction” as used in this claim limitation because, as discussed below, WhiteWater fails in its challenge of claims 3, 8, and 12, even assuming its proposed construction is correct.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “chamber 11 includes “operating device 30” and “flow control devices 17, 19.” Ex. 1005, 3:11-16, 3:43–45. According to Chutter, each chamber 11 “has similar mechanisms and the bank of chambers can be operated in any desired rhythm or sequence by a controller 40 coupled to each of operating devices 30 so that the pool can be provided with recreational waves of any desired pattern.” Id. at 4:3–13 (emphasis added). The pattern of waves “may be varied, as is well known, according to the sequencing at which pressurized air is delivered to the plurality of chambers.” Id. at 2:55–58 (emphasis added). Notably, Chutter teaches that central controller 40 is “arranged to control the rhythm or pattern of the several operating means so that, for example, all operating means” are actuated either “simultaneously” to create an “essentially linear” wave effect, or “sequentially” to create a “curved” or “non-orthogonal” wave effect. Id. at 2:12–39 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:58–59 (“Adjacent chambers may be air pressurized alternately or simultaneously.”). Consistent with that disclosure, Chutter depicts controller 40 with multiple “connection” arrows to also indicate that a single, common controller controls the valve structure8 in multiple of Chutter’s wave-generating chambers 11. See id. at Fig. 1. Based on Chutter’s disclosures as a whole, we find that Chutter’s central controller 40 exemplifies a well-known and conventional controller 8 During the oral hearing, AWM’s counsel conceded that the term “valve structure,” as used in the claims, means not only “a set of valves,” but also “additional structure,” such as the means “to operate those valves” or “the actuator for the valves.” Hrg. Tr. 33:1–17. As such, we view Chutter’s operating means 30 and flow control devices 17 and 19 as corresponding to the claimed “valve structure.” capable of being connected to the valve structure in each of a series of wavegenerating chambers so as to actuate the valve structures in a sequential and delayed fashion to create a surf-simulating wave in a pool. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 162; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 129–130. With that in mind, we further find that one skilled in the art would have looked to Chutter to reprogram or modify McFarland’s controller to operate in the same manner as Chutter’s controller so that McFarland’s controller was also capable of actuating the wave-generating chambers in a sequential and delayed fashion, as required by independent claims 1, 11, and 16. See Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 163–164; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 131–133. Indeed, both McFarland and Chutter seek to create desirable surf waves and have similar wave-generating structures, such as a bank of chambers at one end of a pool and a controller for actuating a valve structure in each chamber to release water from the chamber into the pool. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 163; Ex. 1016 ¶ 131.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “As discussed above, WhiteWater persuasively shows that the combination of McFarland and Chutter teaches or suggests the disputed “controller” limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, in particular, limitations 1.C, 1.D, 1.D.1, 11.C, 11.D, 11.D.1, 16.C, and 16.D.1. AWM does not otherwise dispute WhiteWater’s showing of how the asserted combination teaches the remaining limitations of the independent claims. See PO Resp. 44, 49, 53, 62 (identifying claim elements 1.C, 1.D, 1.D.1, 11.C, 11.D, 11.D.1, 16.C, and 16.D.1 as being absent from the asserted combination). Nor does AWM dispute WhiteWater’s showing that the asserted combination teaches the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18, contending only that they are “distinguishable over McFarland and Chutter for at least the same reasons previously explained” with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16. Based on our review, we find that the record fully supports WhiteWater’s showing that the asserted combination teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 16, as well as the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18. See Pet. 58–63. In sum, after weighing all relevant factual findings, including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of McFarland and Chutter, and any differences between their combined teachings and the claimed invention,9 we conclude that WhiteWater demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, and 16–18 of the ’966 patent are unpatentable as obvious over McFarland and Chutter. Having determined those claims to be unpatentable, we do not address whether they are also unpatentable under WhiteWater’s alternative theories based on McFarland alone and Chutter alone. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (non-precedential) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and, thus, has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,434,966 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,434,966
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,945,649
• Pelican Biothermal, LLC v. Va-Q-Tec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,766,685
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,881,538

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.