• Hanwha Solutions Corporation v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 24, 2026 · IPR2024-01198 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish the claimed metal impurities or a reason to combine Istratov’s gettering process with the cited solar-cell references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “These disclosures, taken together, indicate that “metal impurities” are undesirable, and, accordingly, the term “metal impurities” is not meant to include intentionally added dopants. The undesirability of “metal impurities” is also demonstrated by the Specification’s instruction that “contaminants and/or impurities” are used interchangeably throughout. Ex. 1001, 5:8–9. In that regard, “iron, nickel, and/or chromium, among others” are the only exemplary metal impurities and/or metal contaminants identified in the Specification. Id. at 4:65–5:1 (“In an embodiment, the silicon substrate 202 can have contaminants and/or impurities 220, for example metal contaminants and/or metal impurities, such as iron, nickel and/or chromium, among others); 5:35–39 (“In an embodiment, the heating can include gettering contaminants, e.g., metal impurities and/or metal contaminants, from the substrate to the emitter region. In an example, the metal impurities and/or metal contaminants can be iron, nickel, and/or contaminants 520, e.g. metal impurities and/or contaminants, can be located in the second emitter region 512 . . . the metal impurities 520 can be iron, nickel and/or chromium, among others.”). And metal impurities and metal contaminants are both described as gettering from the silicon substrate to the emitter region. See id. at 5:5–9 (“A gettering process can be used to trap the metal impurities 220 in the emitter regions 212, reducing recombination within the silicon substrate 202 and improving overall cell lifetime.”); 5:35– 40 (“In an embodiment, the heating can include gettering contaminants, e.g. metal impurities and/or metal contaminant[s], from the substrate to the emitter region. In an example, the metal impurities and/or metal contaminants can be iron, nickel and/or chromium among others.”); 6:5–8 (“In an embodiment, the heating can getter 232 contaminants 220 from, or nearby, the surface 204 of the silicon substrate 202 and/or from within the silicon substrate 202 to the emitter region 212.”) Accordingly, the Specification conveys that “metal impurities” are metal contaminants that are detrimental to the electrical conduction of solar cells.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner fails to sufficiently demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSITA would have been motivated to look to Istratov’s gettering process to improve Choi’s solar cell. Although Petitioner argues that a POSITA would have been motivated to look to Istratov’s gettering process upon identifying detrimental levels of metal impurities in Choi’s substrate, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Holman levels of metal impurities in Choi’s substrate, what level of metal impurities would be “detrimental,” or what detriment the metal impurities would cause. In that regard, Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any teachings in Choi regarding the presence of metal impurities in the silicon substrate, let alone iron and/or copper impurities such as those described in Istratov.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner. As the Board indicated in Chicago Mercantile Exchange, whether a document qualifies as a printed publication requires a legal determination based upon evidence and “the issue of whether there is sufficient evidence in the record . . . should be presented in the patent owner response—not a motion to exclude.” Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Paper 35 at 52. Although addressing the admissibility of evidence (authenticity or hearsay) underlying the factual determinations of whether Exhibits 1018, 1034, and 1120 may be the subject of a motion to exclude, Patent Owner’s arguments in the Motion address whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that these exhibits are prior art, not the general admissibility of the documents. See Mot. 3–6; Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Paper 35 at 52. be excluded. These exhibits, for the most part, are offered to support Dr. Holman’s testimony regarding the background of the technology (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42, 43, 45–52, 56, 57 (citing Ex. 1018), 55, 67 (citing Ex. 1034)) or what the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood (Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1120); Ex. 1089 ¶¶ 46–48, 56, 59, 60, 69 (citing Ex. 1120)). Furthermore, Exhibit 1018 was authored by Dr. Holman, and is identified in the curriculum vitae appended to Dr. Holman’s declaration in support of the Petition. Ex. 1003, 224 (App’x. A). Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to exclude” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 11,251,315 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,251,315
• Canadian Solar Inc. v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2026 · IPR2024-01038 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10–16 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish a motivation to combine the cited references to meet the claimed dopant concentration.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Artisan”) would have had “an advanced degree involving the discipline of electrical engineering, applied physics, chemistry, or materials science, and at least two years of experience designing, developing, or researching in the field,” or “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or materials science, and at least three years of experience designing, developing, or researching in the field.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47); 1194IPR Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1100 ¶ 47). Patent Owner states that it “accepts the level of ordinary skill in the art that is proposed in the Petition.” PO Resp. 11. In the Institution Decisions, we adopted the assessment offered by Petitioner. 1038IPR Dec. 5–6; 1194IPR Dec. 8. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’315 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. Claim Construction 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. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Based on our review of the complete trial record, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ dispute. Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner fails to sufficiently demonstrate that the combination of Li and King, Swanson-352, or Marvin teaches “a portion of the silicon substrate has a dopant concentration of approximately less than or equal to 2x1018 cm-3” as recited in claim 10 because Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a Skilled Artisan would have been motivated to look to the dopant concentrations in King, Swanson-352, or Marvin to determine the concentration of dopants for use in Li’s silicon substrate.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Our rules provide that a petitioner must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including 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). Our rules also state that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” Id. § 42.23(b). “‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 74 (Dec. 2025) (“CTPG”). Our Trial argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id. at 73; see also id. at 74 (“Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, such as newly raised rationale to combine the prior art references that was not expressed in the petition.”). In the Petition, Petitioner argues that a Skilled Artisan would have been motivated to combine Li’s back contact cell with the front portion doping concentration disclosed in King, Swanson-352, or Marvin, because Li, King, Swanson-352, and Marvin are analogous art. Pet. 30–32. Petitioner also points to Li’s acknowledgement that techniques for increasing efficiency are generally desired because efficiency is an important characteristic of a solar cell. Id. at 32. As Patent Owner notes, however, the Petition does not include the phrase “finite number” or “obvious to try.” PO Sur-reply 20. Petitioner’s “obvious to try” argument is a newly raised rationale to combine the prior art references necessary to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. See CTPG 74. Accordingly, we do not consider Petitioner’s untimely new argument.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,251,315 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,251,315
• Air Products And Chemicals, Inc. v. Evonik Operations GmbH And Evonik CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2025 · IPR2024-00611 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 were not shown unpatentable: the Ungerank Patent was not established as prior art, and Scholz did not establish the claimed recycle range or motivation to modify its systems.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ . . . and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)). Here, Petitioner asserts that (1) the combined teachings of the Ungerank Patent and Scholz disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1–5, 7, 9, and 11–23 of the ’380 patent, and (2) the Ungerank Patent qualifies as prior art because the portions cited in the Corrected Petition and the Baker Declaration were published in the Ungerank Application.7 slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner ultimately has the burden of persuasion, based on all the evidence, on both these assertions. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the portions of the Ungerank Patent relied on in the Corrected Petition and the Baker Declaration qualify as prior art. There is nothing in the Initial Petition or the exhibits filed in support thereof that indicates Petitioner’s intention to rely on the Ungerank Application as prior art in this proceeding. The Initial Petition defines “Ungerank” as the Ungerank Patent, and all citations to “Ungerank” in support of Petitioner’s allegations are to the Ungerank Patent. Initial Pet. 3, 12–14, 17–42. The Initial Petition does not refer to the Ungerank Application, and the Ungerank Application was not submitted as an exhibit with the Initial Petition. Id. at iii–v (Exhibit List). And Petitioner’s expert declarant, Dr. Baker, did not consider the Ungerank Application when formulating his opinions in support of the Initial Petition. Ex. 1003 ¶ 51 (identifying materials considered). Although the Corrected Petition redefines “Ungerank” as the Ungerank Application, the Corrected Petition retains its citations to the Ungerank Patent.8 Corrected Pet. 3, 12–15, 18–43. In that regard, Petitioner generally asserts that the Ungerank Application’s “specification and figures 8 At the hearing, Petitioner’s counsel stated that they left the citations to the Ungerank Patent in the Corrected Petition because they “didn’t want to make tons and tons of changes,” and the Ungerank Patent citations “are much more specific.” Tr. 12:10–13; see also Pet. Reply 10 (“Moreover, by citing AP-1006’s column and line numbers instead of AP-1038’s paragraph numbers, Petitioner provided more specific citations in support of its arguments.”). are identical to the” Ungerank Patent, but does not direct us to where the specific portions of the Ungerank Patent that it asserts to be prior art can be found in the Ungerank Application. See id. at 3. We are also not directed to any evidence in the record that indicates that Dr. Baker compared the portions of the Ungerank Patent on which he relies to the disclosures in the Ungerank Application, or even considered the Ungerank Application at all. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 51; Ex. 1041 ¶ 4; Ex. 2009, 44:10–45:18; Ex. 2018, 12:18– 23. We decline to perform an analysis that is missing from the Corrected Petition and Dr. Baker’s testimony. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). Accordingly, Petitioner does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the cited portions of the Ungerank Patent were published in the Ungerank Application.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Our rules provide that a petitioner must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including 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). Our rules also state that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” Id. § 42.23(b). “‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” CTPG 74. Our Trial Practice Guide explains that “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id. at 73; see also id. at 74 (“Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, such as newly raised rationale to combine the prior art references that was not expressed in the petition.”). In the Reply, Petitioner argues that “POSITAs ‘might have already figured out’” that, in Comparative Example 1, the surface area of the membrane in stage 2 was larger than that of the membrane is stage 1, and Scholz’s Figure 7 systems with larger stage 2 membrane areas than stage 1 were “consistent with POSITAs’ likely intuition about [Comparative Example 1’s] stage 2 and stage 1 areas.” Pet. Reply 19. As Petitioner concedes, this “an additional reason POSITAs would have found it appropriate to look to Scholz’s Figure 7 to better understand [Comparative Example 1’s] relative surface areas.” Id. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 31–32) (emphasis added). The case presented in the Corrected Petition is that a POSITA would have looked to Scholz because Comparative Example 1 does not provide details on the area of the membranes or their ratios. Corrected Pet. 18–19. Petitioner’s admitted “additional reason” to combine the Ungerank Patent and Scholz in the Reply is a newly raised rationale to combine the prior art references necessary to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. See CTPG 74. Accordingly, Petitioner’s untimely new argument is waived, and we do not consider it here.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Having considered the complete trial record, we determine that Petitioner fails to sufficiently demonstrate that the combination of the Ungerank Patent and Scholz teaches limitation [1.f.ii] because Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSITA would have been motivated to look to the relative sizes of the membranes in the stages of Scholz’s Figure 7 to determine the relative sizes of the membranes in the stages of Comparative Example 1.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,471,380 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,471,380
• Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00231 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–16, 18, 27–29, 31, and 32 were not proven unpatentable because the asserted references failed to establish the claimed airflow path or a reason to make the proposed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of skill are similar and differ in that Petitioner’s relevant degrees and corresponding two years of experience additionally includes “industrial design” and “product design” and familiarity with “electrically powered vaporizing articles, their components or the underlying technologies” where Patent Owner requires two years of experience “designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree.” Compare Pet. 7, with PO Resp. 2. Patent Owner alleges that “Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability under either standard,” indicating that the level of skill in the art is not a dispositive issue. PO Resp. 3. In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’123 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’123 patent and the prior art. We note that the outcome of this Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “In this case, Mr. McAlexander meets both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art. As a result, we are persuaded Mr. McAlexander has the requisite skill and relevant expertise to offer testimony in this matter. For example, Mr. McAlexander has a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering and far more than 2 years of experience in the electrical engineering field. Ex. 1027, 3–6, 7. In addition, Mr. McAlexander has provided expert consulting services in a wide range of technology areas involving the process and design of electro-mechanical consumer products. Ex. 1003 ¶ 5. Through one of Mr. McAlexander’s business ventures, his laboratory has “performed detailed airflow analyses, designing and constructing specialized apparatuses to emulate human breath, allowing for precise activation testing of ENDS devices.” Ex. 1043 ¶ 16. That said, a declarant’s expertise, even clothed as a skilled artisan, does not entitle a naked opinion persuasive weight. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, Patent Owner had the opportunity to, and in fact did, thoroughly cross examine Mr. McAlexander about the purported deficiencies in his testimony. See, e.g., Exs. 2052, 2054; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) (“Vigorous cross examination [and] presentation of contrary evidence . . . are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”). Therefore, to the extent Patent Owner credibly identifies deficiencies in Mr. McAlexander’s testimony or that testimony lacks factual support or is based on broad, conclusory assertions, we will assign appropriate weight. See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that it is within the Board’s discretion, as the trier of fact, to accord appropriate weight to the evidence presented).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that the parties proposed a construction for “pressure valve,” a limitation appearing in claims 18 and 31, during the ITC investigation. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 41:58–65). Patent Owner contends that the terms of the ’123 patent should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. PO Resp. 4. Because resolution of the issues presented in this case do not require construction of the term “pressure valve,” we do not expressly construe this claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner. To anticipate a claim, a reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369. “The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be arranged as in the claim means that the claims cannot be treated . . . as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Indeed, the prior art reference “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371 (citation omitted). “[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and the claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.” Id.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,123 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,123
• Juul Labs, Inc. v. Njoy, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00160 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–48 not shown unpatentable on any of six § 103 grounds because the asserted references did not teach the required housing aperture and the proposed combinations lacked adequate support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelDecided for patent owner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner does not provide its own definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, Petitioner asserts: In previous litigation involving the ’881 patent – the parent patent to the ’864 patent (Fuma International LLC v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, Case No. 1:19-cv-260 (M.D.N.C. 2019)) with an identical specification – Patent Owner’s predecessor-in-interest asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the purported invention would have had a mechanical or electrical engineering degree, industrial design degree, or a similar technical degree, or equivalent work experience, and 5 to 10 years of experience in electromechanical devices. Ex. 1007, ¶¶14-17. Pet. 11–12; see also Ex. 1007 ¶ 16 (Mr. Sturges testifying that he meets “that qualification” without affirmatively providing a definition for a POSITA). Before institution, Patent Owner stated it did not challenge this definition (Prelim. Resp. 9), and we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition in our Decision granting institution. During trial, Patent Owner also adopted this definition. PO Resp. 10–11. Upon a complete record, we see no reason to change and we maintain the agreed upon definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner argues, and Petitioner does not dispute, that an aperture is a “hole” or an “opening.” See, e.g., id. at 21; see generally Reply. Patent Owner asserts that, in the proper context, the plain and ordinary meaning of a housing having an aperture is that the aperture is a hole, or an opening, on the housing structure itself. Id. at 21–22. We agree. In order for an object to have an “aperture” or an “opening,” the aperture or opening must be on the structure itself and not on a separate object that is located in the structure. This construction is in accord with the Specification of the ’864 patent, which refers to apertures in context of the structure on which they are located. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:12–18 (referring to a first end comprising a first aperture), 7:11–12, 7:65–67 (stating that the wall of an airflow passageway may have apertures).” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “large obstructions that force the air flow to near the peripheral surface of the housing, render the passageway non-central. During prosecution of the ’864 patent, the Examiner rejected certain claims (i.e., dependent claims 49, 63, and 75) over Han. To overcome this rejection, the applicant argued that Han cannot meet the limitation “wherein the airflow passageway extends centrally and axially from the first aperture to the second aperture.” Ex. 1002, 273. The applicant explained that Han does not meet this limitation because Han’s shell (b) does not include a central airflow passageway and instead places the perforated component for liquid storage (9) in the middle of shell (b), thereby forcing the airflow around the peripheral surface of the perforated component for liquid storage (9). Id. at 273–274. The examiner relied on this argument in determining that the applicant had overcome an earlier rejection. Id. at 195. Thus, some obstructions of a passageway render the passageway non-central; in particular those obstructions that force air to flow near the peripheral surface of the housing are large enough to render the passageway non-central.” slip op. at 22

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

    “lacks motivation and is plagued by improper hindsight.” Sur-reply 15–17. On the record developed during trial, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Xia with those of Wang to arrive at the claimed limitations. Relying on the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Singhose, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known a central straight path has less airflow resistance than a circuitous one.” Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1035, 127:15–128:9). But the same witness also testified that higher airflow resistance might be desirable and explained that providing more resistance to airflow might result in improved mixing. Ex. 1035, 21:21–22:12, 127:20–24, 170:10–14. In addition, Dr. Singhose testifies that the complicated design of the airflow passageway in Xia “serves important functions,” including “allow[ing] large droplets to be reabsorbed by the liquid-guiding mechanism,” allowing “excessive liquid in the airflow [to] condense,” and “prevent[ing] the chemical liquid from being sucked into the mouth.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 190 (citing Ex. 1004, 11, 13–14, 16). Although Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Sturges testifies that a straight airflow passageway “would provide improved, smoother air flow,” he does not provide any evidence supporting the view that the air flow would be improved. Ex. 1007 ¶ 144. We credit the testimony of Dr. Singhose that using a straight passageway in Xia would have been detrimental rather than beneficial. Ex. 2022 ¶ 190. slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 11,497,864 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,497,864
• Juul Labs, Inc. v. Njoy, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00161 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed central airflow passageway or a reason to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Relying on the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Singhose, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known a central straight path has less airflow resistance than a circuitous one.” Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 1035, 127:15–128:9). But the same witness also testified that higher airflow resistance might be desirable and explained that providing more resistance to airflow might result in improved mixing. Ex. 1035, 21:21–22:12, 127:20–24, 170:10–14. In addition, Dr. Singhose testifies that the complicated design of the airflow passageway in Xia “serves important functions,” including “allow[ing] large droplets to be reabsorbed by the liquid-guiding mechanism,” allowing “excessive liquid in the airflow [to] condense,” and “prevent[ing] the chemical liquid from being sucked into the mouth.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 183 (citing Ex. 1004, 11, 13–14, 16). Although Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Sturges testifies that a straight airflow passageway “would provide improved, smoother air flow,” he does not provide any evidence supporting the view that the air flow would be improved. Ex. 1007 ¶ 118. We credit the testimony of Dr. Singhose that using a straight passageway in Xia would have been detrimental rather than beneficial. Ex. 2022 ¶ 183. Petitioner also argues that the inventors’ use of a straight path is evidence that the use of a straight passageway was “merely common-sense obviousness.” Reply 22–23. This is hindsight. Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The inventor’s own path itself never leads to a conclusion of obviousness; that is hindsight.”). Moreover, it does not address the testimony of Dr. Singhose that the use of a complicated passageway like that in Xia had benefits not present in a straight central passageway.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had a mechanical or electrical engineering degree, industrial design degree, or a similar technical degree, or equivalent work experience, and 5 to 10 years of experience in electromechanical devices.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 16). Prior to institution, Patent Owner stated that, for “the limited purpose of this Preliminary Response,” it “does not challenge the definition of a POSITA set forth in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 9. We adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition in our Decision granting institution. During trial, neither party disputed this definition. Upon a complete record, we see no reason to change the adopted definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner argues, however, that this presumption is overcome in the present case, and we agree. PO Resp. 28–32. We note that, although the claims require the first aperture to be “on the first end,” the claims still require that the “housing hav[e] a first aperture.” Thus, the issue is whether the aperture must be on the housing itself or part of the housing, as well as whether the aperture is on the first end of the housing. Although “having” and “includes” are used with respect to the solution holding medium to refer to elements located inside the housing, the specification of the ’881 patent suggests that the ends of the housing are part of the housing itself, rather than located inside the housing. First, “the first end . . . can be integrated into a single assembly as part of the housing.” Ex. 1001, 6:16–17. Second, “the housing . . . may comprise the cylindrical wall and two end-caps,” or “the housing . . . may comprise the cartridge wall and a single end-cap.” Id. at 3:55–59. The only figures of the ’881 patent that depict first end 206 show it at the end of the housing rather than located within the interior of housing 202. Id. at Figs. 2, 3. Moreover, there is no requirement to construe a claim term uniformly across multiple uses in the claims when doing so would be nonsensical. Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, construing a first element that is recited as “having” or “includ[ing]” a second element always as encompassing not only second elements that are part of the first element, but also second elements that are located within the interior of the first element, would lead to nonsensical results. Claim 2 recites an airflow passageway “having a length having a circular cross section.” Ex. 1001, 17:59–60. It would be nonsensical to interpret this claim as encompassing an airflow passageway of non-circular cross section that contains another object that has a circular cross section, and neither party argues in favor of such a reading. Similarly, claim 16 recites an “airflow passageway having an interior having a uniform cross-sectional area,” and there is no reason to interpret this claim as encompassing an airflow passageway of non-uniform cross-sectional area that contains another object that itself has uniform cross-sectional area. Id. at 19:47–48. Thus, the claims do not use “having” or “includes” consistently to refer to elements located within the interior of an object; instead, they sometimes use these terms to refer to elements that are a part of an object. See Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1030–31 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (terms should be construed based on the context of how the terms are used in the claims).” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “When we instituted trial, we preliminarily construed this phrase to encompass apertures that are located within the first end of the housing, determining on the record available at that time that “[t]he term does not require that the first aperture be located in the housing itself.” Inst. Dec. 16. We invited the parties to “address [the] construction of this term during trial,” id., and, on the full record developed during trial, we reach a different conclusion.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,334,881 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,334,881
• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,770,121
• Orthocision, Inc. v. PTL Opco LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted § 103 ground because Petitioner did not adequately explain how or why the prior art would be combined.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Bovinet, uses a slightly different, but not materially so, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan than Petitioner. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 13. Thus, the parties appear to agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience. We accept and adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’129 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” 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)). B.” slip op. at 13

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

    “3. Summary on Claim Construction We maintain our earlier constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . .” See DI 16–24. We determine that no other express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. Although we maintain here our constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . ,” we do so only for the sake of completeness. These claim constructions, ultimately, are not determinative of the outcome of this proceeding because, regardless of the meaning of any claim term, including these disputed terms, we find that Petitioner fails to adequately explain why any claim would have been obvious under the asserted grounds. We explain this in detail below. C.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Ex. 1001, 6:28–38 (emphasis added). However, the language of claim 1 is very clear on the functionality of the “open tip,” expressly reciting that “the open tip cuts bone tissue away from the sacrum or the ilium.” Id. at 13:19– 20. Thus, the claim language itself provides the required functionality of the “open tip,” and we do not agree with Petitioner that additional functionality relating to where bone tissue might go once cut, as discussed in the Specification, should be read into the claims as a limitation. Patent Owner’s newly proposed interpretation is similar to Petitioner’s in that it requests addition of functionality discussed as an example in the Specification, but not recited in the claim’s expressly recited functional language relating to the “open tip.” We disagree with Patent Owner that the concept of dislodged tissue entering a void defined by the open tip is necessary to understanding the claim element. And, once more, Patent Owner reads too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that the recited “open tip” language requires that we further clarify that any interior void defined by the open tip is on the interior of the abrading head, and behind the exterior abrading surfaces, or between interior surfaces of a first pair of opposing sides, as proposed by Patent Owner. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification . . . , it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. . . . [T]he claims define the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581–82 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112 ¶ 6) if, as here, it explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional language; this presumption is overcome if the limitation further includes the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Here, the word “means” is recited, followed by functional language, and the claim recites no structure associated with the means or function. Moreover, the parties agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Resp. 9. We find “releasing means” is a means plus function limitation and, based on the plain language of the claim, the recited “releasing means” is a part of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17. Construing a claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) involves two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function; and then (2) determining what structure, if any, disclosed in the Specification corresponds to the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. In conducting this analysis, we may not incorporate structure from the written description beyond that which is necessary to perform the claimed function. See Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,020,129 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,020,129
• BTC Corporation v. TG Biotech Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00998 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to strike Exhibit 1038 was granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that we should disregard Dr. Naumovski’s testimony because she may have taken a leave of absence from work for a couple of years. The record supports that Dr. Naumovski not only meets the requirements of the person of ordinary skill in the art, but also appears to have relevant knowledge with respect to Gynostemma pentaphylum (“GP”) saponins. See Ex. 2015 (Appendix A). related field, and at least two years of experience using techniques for extraction and characterization of plant-based materials.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 74). Because there are more than 400 species of plants that contain saponins, Patent Owner disagrees that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the structure and utility of saponins. Id. The level of skill in the art is a reference point for gauging what would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner, however, does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would meaningfully alter the Petition’s assertions of obviousness. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner, but there would be no difference in the outcome of this Decision if we were to apply the level of skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. C.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “during the full trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that applying the methods of Kim 460 to the G. pentaphyllum starting material of Razmovski necessarily results in the damulin levels as claimed. We agree with Dr. Naumovski’s explanation that the use of an impure damulin B standard containing a double peak renders the results as shown in Exhibit 1013 unreliable. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 141–143, 162–173; see Ex. 2007. Dr. Naumovski further explains that the use of an impure standard would require the application of a correction factor, but this correction factor would need to be reassessed as the purity of the standard decreases over time. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 166. As Dr. Naumovski explains that applying a correction factor to the linear regression would result in a shallower slope. Ex. 2015 ¶ 165 (citing 2006, 71:12–73:5; 99:2–9). “Reducing the calibration curve slope increases the amount of damulin B calculated from the experimental extracts.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 165. However, in the Experimental Report-1 the same correction factor for the damulin B standard was used to” slip op. at 41

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner requests construction of the terms “an effective amount for improving or treating the metabolic syndrome,” which is found in claims 11–13, as meaning “an amount that produces any measurable amount of improvement in the metabolic syndrome” (Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91)) and “[a] pharmaceutical composition for improving and treating a metabolic syndrome, comprising at least one of at least 0.7% damulin A and at least 0.5% damulin B . . . and a pharmacologically acceptable carrier or excipient,” which is found in claim 8, as meaning “a pharmaceutical composition that includes an extract with 0.7% and 0.5% of damulin A and damulin B[, respectively,] along with a carrier or excipient” (id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002, 64–65, 251–52, 280; Ex. 1001, 12:15–67, Table 2)). Patent Owner argues that “constructions are not necessary.” PO Resp. 11–12. We agree with Patent Owner and determine that it is not necessary for purposes of this Decision to construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms” slip op. at 15

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

    “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Droge, 695 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed.Cir.1988)); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the expectation of success issue involves a showing of “a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed”) (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner relies on Kim 460 to show that heating ginseng, which contains the ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, results in a teaches that ginseng with the higher Rg3 and Rg5 content is 50-fold more potent in their vasodilation studies than the non-treated samples. Razmovski teaches that G. pentaphyllum contains over 100 saponins and eight of those saponins are the same as protoparaxadiol-type ginsenosides Rb1, Rc, Rb3, Rd, F2, Rg3, malonyl-Rb1, and malonyl-Rd that are found in P. ginseng. Ex. 1007, 4. Knowing that G. pentaphyllum also contains ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, we find Petitioner’s conclusion that heating a G. pentaphyllum extract that contains these ginsenosides would similarly increase the ginsenoside levels of Rg3 and Rg5 is a reasonable inference from the cited references. Based on the teachings in Kim 460, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been reasonable to expect that the same source material, although derived from a different plant, would behave similarly to heat treatment. See Pet. 24. Because G. pentaphyllum is a less expensive starting material, we also agree with Petitioner that there is sufficient motivation to substitute G. pentaphyllum for ginseng in the methods of Kim 460. slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,357,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,357,786
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00556 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach or suggest the limitation requiring no outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “As the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. Consequently, and according to the plain and ordinary meaning, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, 29 such as a cloth, fabric or other material, that covers all, or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, and specifically “between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame,” we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the spaces between those struts and members. Consequently, the ordinary and customary meaning of the limitation “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” is that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As an initial matter, there is little disagreement between the parties and their experts that PET can be a graft covering. However, the disputed limitation requires something more. Specifically, it requires that “the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.” We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence of record, that Levi, Spenser II, or Walther, upon which Petitioner relies, teaches or suggests the incorporated limitation of claim 1 reciting “wherein the valve assembly is free of an outer graft covering between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame.” In our analysis, we must first determine what is meant by the claim term “outer graft covering.”” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Furthermore, our understanding of an outer graft covering as a material or structure that covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering, reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by challenged claim 1. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met 35 its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 10,987,236 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,987,236

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.