- Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00605 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable over Gravesen and Brister; claims 7, 11, and 18–28 were not shown unpatentable.
In the decision…argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art 30 IPR2022-00605 Patent 10,945,649 B2 would have made this combination based on Gravesen’s express teaching that elements of the different embodiments can be combined, and because Gravesen teaches that the two-part design of Figure 1 (i.e., plunger…
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest possible effective filing date (“POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a related subject, and one or more years of experience researching, developing and/or designing insertable medical devices, including, e.g., systems for implanting wearable medical devices such as cannulas, infusion sets, and analyte sensors, or equivalent experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 11 n.1. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On the full trial record, we again find that Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing is unwarranted. First, the intrinsic record does not support Patent Owner’s required “central” axis. Patent Owner argues that the Specification describes two inserter embodiments as having “rotors,” and those rotors have a central axis. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 29:25–28, 29:55–59, Figs. 32, 45). Patent Owner, however, fails to explain why those embodiments should be understood to limit the claims. For example, in Phillips, the Federal Circuit “expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Although the Petition does state that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of a ‘recess’ to include ‘an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room),’” the Petition does not specify what else is “include[d]” in this term, nor does it specify that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire interior of a housing. The Petition also does not invoke the Specification as demonstrating that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire housing.13 Pet. 64 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s belated proposal also conflicts with the language of the claims themselves. Independent claim 1 recites “a rotor disposed within the inserter housing.” Ex. 1001, 43:42. Dependent claim 7 narrows claim 1 by reciting that “the housing comprises a recess in which the rotor is received.” Id. at 44:11–12. If the interior of the inserter housing and the recess could be one and the same as Petitioner proposes, there would be no need for claim 7, because it would not further limit claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”); see also Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The concept of claim differentiation ‘normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.’”) (quoting Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, we decline Petitioner’s belated request to construe “recess” to include “an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder.” 13 We acknowledge that Petitioner argued that the entire interior of Gravesen’s housing maps to the claimed “recess,” but this was in the context of comparing the prior art to the claim as construed. Indeed, Petitioner asserted that “the space within [Gravesen’s] housing is an alcove.” Pet. 64– 65 (emphasis added). In sum, Petitioner did not timely argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “recess” includes an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder. We adopt the only construction Petitioner offered and supported in the Petition. In view of the above, we construe “recess” as meaning “an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room).”” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 10,945,649 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,945,649 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00193 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10–18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Spenser and Spenser II; claims 9 and 19 were not shown unpatentable.
In the decision…methods,” but with both methods paravalvular leaks are a known side effect.” Id. ¶ 11; see also id. ¶ 9 (discussing another Spencer reference teaching “crimped devices suitable for catheterization through a body duct to a target location and adapted to be deployed”); see also Ex. 1010,…
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Spenser II provides that its cloth “has a thickness ranging from about 1 to 5 mm.” Spenser and Levi both teach a valve that has a diameter of 25 mm and 26 mm respectively when fully expanded. Accordingly, even if we were to assume a POSITA used the thinnest possible cloth in Spenser II, Petitioner’s proposed combination using the smaller Spenser 25 mm diameter (12.5 mm radius) expanded valve covered by a 1 mm cloth resulting in a 27 mm diameter (13.5 mm radius) valve…. From this we can conservatively estimate how much cloth is required for a cross-section of the proposed device (Acloth) by calculating the total area of a cross-section of the cloth-covered valve (π*(13.5 mm)2) and subtracting the area of a cross-section of just the valve (π*(12.5 mm)2). Acloth = π*(13.5 mm)2 - π*(12.5 mm)2 = 81.68 mm2 Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed combination requires 81.68 mm2 of outer cloth in a given cross-section of the device.” slip op. at 78
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“that the claims are not obvious over Spenser and Spenser II because Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any of its proposed prior art combinations disclose or render obvious a valve with a “sealing material” that is delivered “endovascularly.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner also argues Petitioner fails to prove that any of its combinations disclose or render obvious a “fibrous network” “in overlapping radial alignment with native valve leaflets.” Id. at 73. Additionally, Patent Owner contends that objective indicia of non-obviousness (also called secondary considerations) support a conclusion that the challenged claims are nonobvious. Id. at 2. Finally, Patent Owner contends that the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Buller, should be given little or no weight, because, Patent Owner argues, he has no expertise in the issues at hand. Id. at 90.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“that the claims are not obvious over Spenser and Spenser II because Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any of its proposed prior art combinations disclose or render obvious a valve with a “sealing material” that is delivered “endovascularly.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner also argues Petitioner fails to prove that any of its combinations disclose or render obvious a “fibrous network” “in overlapping radial alignment with native valve leaflets.” Id. at 73. Additionally, Patent Owner contends that objective indicia of non-obviousness (also called secondary considerations) support a conclusion that the challenged claims are nonobvious. Id. at 2. Finally, Patent Owner contends that the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Buller, should be given little or no weight, because, Patent Owner argues, he has no expertise in the issues at hand. Id. at 90.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 10,881,538 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,881,538 - Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01118 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–16, and 18 are unpatentable; claims 6, 9, and 17 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted prior art did not establish all limitations.
In the decision…state of the vehicle, such as whether the engine is on or the car is moving. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 73–74; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 292–293. Kim’s teachings are analogous to the description in the ’140 patent that uses the location of the device (inside or outside the vehicle) to help interpret…
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Discussion Petitioner argues that Kim discloses every limitation of claim 1, and” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Discussion We begin our analysis by addressing Patent Owner’s asserted objective indicia of non-obviousness, and then turn to the merits of Petitioner’s specific obviousness challenges before us.” slip op. at 52
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“the combination of Kim and Baker discloses “comparing the at least one current geographic location to the first geographic location; setting the location of the individual to the individual is in an outside of the vehicle location, when a distance between the at least one current and the first geographic locations exceeds a predetermined threshold.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 6 would have been obvious based on Kim and Baker.” slip op. at 90
Patent outcomesUS 8,527,140 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,527,140 - Runway Safe Group AB v. Earthstone International LLC And W. Gene RamseySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 17, 2021 · IPR2019-01490 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 and 13–16 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 12 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish its interconnected open porosity limitation.
In the decision…(all claims) would have been obvious over Angley, Hojaji, and Schirtzinger. Pet. 60–61; see also id. at 46–60 (Petitioner’s Ground 5 addressing the teachings of Angley and Hojaji). Petitioner bases its assertions under Ground 6, at least in part, on the facts alleged under Ground 5, stating: As…
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. After considering the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 and 13–16 of the ’671 patent are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Petitioner has not met that burden with respect to claim 12.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“any of Narmo, Hojaji, and Ramsey. Resp. 8, 16–17. On this record, we conclude it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ACRP and Narmo, Hojaji, or Ramsey, as asserted by Petitioner. Moreover, we also conclude such combinations merely use specific foamed glass compositions in structures already using foamed glass compositions and that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to successfully do so. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 78, 81, 84. The simplicity of the technology and the reasonably high level of skill in the art support such a conclusion.” slip op. at 57
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“disclosed foamed glass aggregate bodies to have an “interconnected open porosity” is based on an allegation of inherency, where the open porosity forms because of weathering. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 75). Similar to our conclusion regarding Ground 6, we also find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the subject matter of claim 12 would have been obvious over ACRP. We are directed to no evidence of record that the interconnected open porosity limitation would necessarily be present or would be the natural result of weathering, as asserted by Petitioner. See Endo Pharm., 894 F.3d at 1381. To the extent that Petitioner’s argument is premised on a KSR “obvious to try” rationale, as with Ground 6, we find Petitioner presents no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any reason to pursue the claimed interconnected open porosity, no evidence of a design need for such a structure, and no evidence of market pressure to solve any problem relating to foamed glass porosity. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Indeed, Petitioner failed to clearly articulate any obvious to try rationale in the Petition.” slip op. at 74
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“III. PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply for” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 9,382,671 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,382,671
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.