- PTAB · Dec 26, 2017 · IPR2017-02201 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Order
The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding as to all parties because the parties had settled their dispute.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Other
“and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, these sections relate, respectively, to termination of “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter” and to termination of “trial,” which “means a contested case instituted by the Board based upon a petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.2, 42.72. This proceeding is in the preliminary stage, and no decision whether to institute a trial has been made. As such, we treat the parties’ request as seeking dismissal of the Petition to thereby terminate the proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“U.S. Patent No. 6,684,060 B1. Mot. 3–4. The parties represent that “there are no other agreements or understandings, oral or written, between DTS and Avago, including any collateral agreements, made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of the present proceeding.” Mot. 3. Under these circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to dismiss the Petition (Paper 1) and terminate this proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(a), 42.74(a). We also determine that it is appropriate to treat the Agreements as business confidential information to be kept separate from the patent file. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,684,060 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Rosetta-Wireless CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 20, 2017 · IPR2016-00622 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Rosetta’s rehearing request, finding it had not shown the Board overlooked or misapprehended its § 318(a) and constitutional arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Not reached
“property right. Req. Reh’g 4–5. Thus, Rosetta contends “[i]nter partes review is an adjudicatory proceeding which, as in this case, may result in extinguishment of a patentee’s property rights by action of the Board and without the right to trial by jury.” Id. at 3. According to Rosetta, this violates the Seventh Amendment and Article III of the Constitution. Id. Rosetta cites to a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court that has taken up this issue. Id. (citing Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017)). Accordingly, Rosetta asks us to vacate our Final Written Decision. Id. at 6. Rosetta never made arguments during trial about the purported unconstitutionality of inter partes review. Nor does Rosetta’s request for rehearing attempt to identify such arguments in the trial record. As such, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked this issue.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,149,511 - Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2017-00985 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left institution denied for claims 1–3 because the petition lacked required means-plus-function constructions under the adopted claim-construction standard.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, with specificity, all matters that the moving party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“Under our Rules setting forth the requirements for the content of the petition, “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function . . . limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. [§ 112, ¶ 6], the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (emphasis added); see Inst. Dec. 13. Thus, where the challenged claim contains a means-plus-function limitation, the petition must provide a means-plus-function construction for that limitation. Consequently, it was not our task to determine first whether the word “controller” is a nonce word potentially subjecting the claim terms to treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and only then to receive arguments from Petitioner on their construction. See Reh’g Req. 4 (“Without a predicate finding that § 112, ¶ 6 applies, the Petition’s silence on the identity of a ‘corresponding structure’ had no relevance to the issue of claim construction.” (emphasis added)). Our Rules do not require such a “predicate finding,” and we made no such finding regarding the construction of the “controller” terms. See Inst. Dec. 11 (“For the reasons set forth below, we do not need to construe this claim term or determine its definiteness.”). In the absence of arguments under the appropriate standard from at least Petitioner during the Preliminary Proceeding, we have no basis for construing the “controller” terms. See id. at 13–14 (“The analysis of Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1–3 begins and ends with Petitioner’s failure to provide constructions of the claim terms including “controller” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and we cannot evaluate Petitioner’s asserted ground with respect to claims 1–3 in the absence of such constructions.”).” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Under our Rules setting forth the requirements for the content of the petition, “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function . . . limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. [§ 112, ¶ 6], the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (emphasis added); see Inst. Dec. 13. Thus, where the challenged claim contains a means-plus-function limitation, the petition must provide a means-plus-function construction for that limitation. Consequently, it was not our task to determine first whether the word “controller” is a nonce word potentially subjecting the claim terms to treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and only then to receive arguments from Petitioner on their construction. See Reh’g Req. 4 (“Without a predicate finding that § 112, ¶ 6 applies, the Petition’s silence on the identity of a ‘corresponding structure’ had no relevance to the issue of claim construction.” (emphasis added)). Our Rules do not require such a “predicate finding,” and we made no such finding regarding the construction of the “controller” terms. See Inst. Dec. 11 (“For the reasons set forth below, we do not need to construe this claim term or determine its definiteness.”). In the absence of arguments under the appropriate standard from at least Petitioner during the Preliminary Proceeding, we have no basis for construing the “controller” terms. See id. at 13–14 (“The analysis of Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1–3 begins and ends with Petitioner’s failure to provide constructions of the claim terms including “controller” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and we cannot evaluate Petitioner’s asserted ground with respect to claims 1–3 in the absence of such constructions.”). It was Petitioner’s task to determine the necessary claim term constructions to support its request for inter partes review and to present those constructions as part of its Petition. Petitioner failed to do that here with respect to the “controller” terms. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, we did not misapply the law governing interpretation of means- plus-function claim limitations; rather, due to the lack of any arguments or evidence from Petitioner, we did not and could not apply it at all. Consequently, we deny Petitioner’s request that we reconsider our Institution Decision and institute inter partes review of claims 1–3 of the ’371 patent.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“It is hard to see where efficiency is achieved by having two tribunals simultaneously consider different claim constructions under the same standard.4 Nevertheless, we cannot find where Petitioner made this argument in its Petition or its Reply, nor does Petitioner identify where it previously raised this argument. See id. at 7–8; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.”). It goes without saying that we could not have overlooked or misunderstood an argument not made, and it is not an abuse of discretion not to consider such an argument.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,125,371 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-00814 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution for claims 4, 9, and 13 because the Petition did not adequately explain how Shigeeda discloses maintaining cache coherency.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); and In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner provides no further explanation of this citation [(Shigeeda, 42:38–47)]—specifically why a cache flush that occurs only upon the write-back cache’s becoming full of dirty data to “reestablish coherency” discloses “maintain[ing] cache coherency.” Petitioner also cites Shigeeda’s Abstract (Pet. 48 n.105) but provides no further explanation of its relevance. Although Shigeeda’s Abstract mentions a cache flush operation, it does not explain how a cache flush discloses an operation “to maintain cache coherency,” as recited in claim 4. Dec. on Inst. 20–21 (first alteration added). This explanation was directed to the requirement of claim 4 to “maintain cache coherency.” Id. at 20. Following this explanation, we stated: “Second, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how bus bridge 716 ‘operate[s] to maintain cache coherency for the integrated circuit,’ as recited in claim 4.” Id. at 21. This second reason for denying institution as to claim 4 was specific to claim 4’s requirement of a “bridge circuit to operate to maintain cache coherency for the integrated circuit.” See id. at 21–22.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also cites a ten-page passage from the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Weissman. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–129 (cited at Pet. 48 n.104). The cited testimony provides a lengthy explanation as to how Shigeeda allegedly discloses cache coherency in two ways. See id.; see also id. ¶ 116 (“Shigeeda solves the problem of cache incoherency, and maintains the coherence of its caches, in two ways.”). This explanation as to Shigeeda, however, is absent from the Petition. A declaration in support of a petition may be proffered as evidence in support of an argument made in the petition. Such a declaration, however, is not a vehicle through which a petitioner may make an argument that should have been made in the petition. To permit otherwise would allow petitioners to exceed the word limits of our Rules (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.24) and force the patent owner to respond to arguments not made in the petition. Dec. on Inst. 22; see also id. at 23–24 (“Because Petitioner’s contentions as to claims 9 and 13 rely on its inadequate explanations as to claim 4 and do not provide further explanation regarding how Shigeeda allegedly discloses maintaining cache coherency, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 9 and 13 as anticipated by Shigeeda.”).” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We disagree. Petitioner’s citation to such a lengthy passage in its declarant’s testimony (greater than 10 pages) is not an adequate identification of a “specific portion[] of the evidence,” as required by our Rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (“The Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.”). Indeed, some of the cited testimony appears to be directed to a theory of how Shigeeda allegedly discloses cache coherency that is not argued in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116–118. In particular, Dr. Weissman testifies that “Shigeeda solves the problem of cache incoherency, and maintains the coherence of its caches, in two ways.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 116. The first way identified by Dr. Weissman is “by implementing cache 704 as a write-through cache,” and the “second way involves implementing data circuit 720—which, like cache 704, is also a cache memory—as a write-back cache with a specific cache coherence protocol.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116, 119. By contrast, Petitioner identifies only one way in which Shigeeda allegedly discloses cache coherency: “Shigeeda uses an ‘automatic write,’ or a ‘cache flush,’ of the write-back cache block to ‘reestablish coherency’ in its system.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, 42:38–47). This appears to correspond to the second way identified by Dr. Weissman, who testifies that, “[u]pon the write-back cache being full of modified data, an ‘automatic write’ to main memory—also called a ‘cache flush’—is performed to ‘reestablish coherency.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 121 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, 31:65– 32:20, 42:38–59). Thus, it is unclear what relevance, if any, Dr. Weissman’s testimony regarding the first cache coherency theory has to the arguments in the Petition. Additionally, with respect to Petitioner’s contentions as to how the bus bridge allegedly operates to maintain cache coherency, as explained in the Decision on Institution, “Petitioner cites five columns and two figures from Shigeeda without any further explanation in the Petition specifying the relevance or significance of this cited evidence.” Dec. on Inst. 21. This lack of clarity as to Petitioner’s contentions highlights the problem with naked citations to lengthy portions of the evidence without accompanying explanations.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 6,766,389 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 4, 2017 · IPR2016-01643 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request because Exhibit 1015 was not part of the record and a motion to exclude could address any later filing or reliance.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner now presents even more substantive arguments in its Motion for Rehearing, despite Board instructions that the Patent Owner file a motion to exclude the disputed exhibit in its June 30, 2017, email. See Motion 9–15. But the Board discerns no need for a conference call as the issue is moot, because at this point in the proceeding, Exhibit 1015 is simply not part of the record. If and when Petitioner files the disputed exhibit in this proceeding or attempts to rely on any argument or testimony referring to that exhibit, Patent Owner may file a motion to exclude by Due Date 4, as set forth in the Scheduling Order. See Paper 10, 7. As to Patent Owner’s argument that a motion to exclude will not address Petitioner’s alleged procedural violations, Motion at 3–4, we disagree because a motion to exclude is a mechanism in our rules by which such challenges can be made. Thus, Patent Owner’s request for rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 4
- ExcludeOther
“Motion for Rehearing, despite Board instructions that the Patent Owner file a motion to exclude the disputed exhibit in its June 30, 2017, email. See Motion 9–15. But the Board discerns no need for a conference call as the issue is moot, because at this point in the proceeding, Exhibit 1015 is simply not part of the record. If and when Petitioner files the disputed exhibit in this proceeding or attempts to rely on any argument or testimony referring to that exhibit, Patent Owner may file a motion to exclude by Due Date 4, as set forth in the Scheduling Order. See Paper 10, 7. As to Patent Owner’s argument that a motion to exclude will not address Petitioner’s alleged procedural violations, Motion at 3–4, we disagree because a motion to exclude is a mechanism in our rules by which such challenges can be made. Thus, Patent Owner’s request for rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 6,775,745 - Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2017 · IPR2016-00892 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–27 are unpatentable: claims 1, 5–20, 22–25, and 27 as obvious over Rothbaum and Denison; claims 2–4, 21, and 26 as obvious over Rothbaum, Denison, and Ott.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We begin with the plain language of the claims. The term “matching” is used as a gerund (i.e., a verb acting as a noun) in claims 1 and 25 and ordinarily means “[t]he action of match.” Ex. 1020, 4, 6. Thus, the use of “upon a matching” suggests some action of a match, as opposed to, for example, “upon a match,” which might be read to require simply the existence of a match. This supports Petitioner’s view that the arming or disarming must be as a result of a “determination of a match” (a particular type of action).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree that the recital of various “forms of data communication” (Ex. 1001, 3:4–19) in the ’762 patent broadened the meanings of the term “communicate” and the phrase “configured to communicate” themselves. Rather, the “forms” of communication in the cited portion of the ’762 patent merely represent examples of the media or means by which the communication occurs in various preferred embodiments. Ex. 1001, 3:4–19 (listing at least seven examples). Thus, Petitioner does not persuade us that we need to construe the terms “communicate” and “configured to communicate” expressly to encompass both wireless and wired communications.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Although there are slight differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ declarants agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree or the equivalent and some amount of professional experience. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a person having a four year technical degree or equivalent experience with a minimum of two years of professional technical experience in the field of theft prevention devices or related security devices. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“i. Analogousness of Rothbaum and Denison As an initial matter, to be considered for obviousness, a reference must be analogous art. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.”). A prior art reference qualifies as analogous art (1) if it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, it is nonetheless reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Id.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,884,762 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,884,762 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2017 · IPR2017-00984 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution after finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 of the ’827 patent based on the grounds asserted in the petitions.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As to “references the osteophyte,” Petitioner states that the ’827 patent does not define the term “reference,” but argues the broadest reasonable construction of the limitation includes “at least a patient-specific surface that engages or avoids an osteophyte.” Id. Patent Owner does not address this issue directly in this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of the “references the osteophyte” limitation includes a patient specific surface that “engages or avoids the osteophyte,” consistent with the embodiments of Figures 32 and 33 of the ’827 patent. We note that dependent claims 2 and 3 use the phrase “not engage” with respect to a “second osteophyte.” Ex. 1001, 119:30, 119:36–37 (claims 2, 3). Nevertheless, dependent claims 4 and 5 require that the patient-specific surface “substantially engage[s]” an osteophyte (id. at 119:41–46), and therefore the principle of claim differentiation indicates that independent claim 1 has a broader scope than dependent claims 4 and 5.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The next question is whether referencing osteophytes is the “natural result flowing from” Radermacher’s technique, under the aforementioned Oelrich test, or whether it otherwise would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes because (1) such a template would be a negative of the “natural (i.e. not pre-treated) surface”; (2) referencing any osteophyte would, in some cases, aid in alignment because the unique structure of the osteophyte would help ensure that the template was placed in the proper position; and (3) it would eliminate the need to pre-treat the joint to remove the osteophyte in a preliminary surgical step, thus reducing surgical time and improving patient safety. Pet. 30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, 10, 12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–117).” slip op. at 14
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, the prior art relied upon in the asserted ground does not disclose referencing an osteophyte, expressly or inherently. Additionally, Petitioner does not provide adequate evidence that it would have been obvious to apply the technique of Radermacher in patients with osteophytes to engage (or avoid or reference) the osteophyte, as opposed to performing an alternate technique, such as first removing the osteophytes. In particular, Petitioner has not provided adequate evidence of a reasonable likelihood of success of applying Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes beyond unsupported and conclusory assertions thereof. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Radermacher and Alexander renders obvious independent claim 1. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its assertion that independent claim 1, or dependent claims 2–13, 32, 38, and 44–46, are unpatentable as obvious over Radermacher and Alexander.5” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,657,827 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2017 · IPR2017-00983 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board denied both petitions and instituted no trial, finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, or 50–64 were unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25, 28, 29, 32–46, and 50–64 of the ’827 patent based on the grounds asserted in the petitions.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, LLC, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner requests a construction of the term “references the osteophyte.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner does not propose construction of any terms. As to “references the osteophyte,” Petitioner states that the ’827 patent does not define the term “reference,” but argues the broadest reasonable construction of the limitation includes “at least a patient-specific surface that engages or avoids an osteophyte.” Id. Patent Owner does not address this issue directly in this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of the “references the osteophyte” limitation includes a patient specific surface that “engages or avoids the osteophyte,” consistent with the embodiments of Figures 32 and 33 of the ’827 patent. We note that dependent claims 2 and 3 use the phrase “not engage” with respect to a “second osteophyte.” Ex. 1001, 119:30, 119:36–37 (claims 2, 3). Nevertheless, dependent claims 4 and 5 require that the patient-specific surface “substantially engage[s]” an osteophyte (id. at 119:41–46), and therefore the principle of claim differentiation indicates that independent claim 1 has a broader scope than dependent claims 4 and 5.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The next question is whether referencing osteophytes is the “natural result flowing from” Radermacher’s technique, under the aforementioned Oelrich test, or whether it otherwise would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Radermacher’s technique to a bone surface with osteophytes because (1) such a template would be a negative of the “natural (i.e. not pre-treated) surface”; (2) referencing any osteophyte would, in some cases, aid in alignment because the unique structure of the osteophyte would help ensure that the template was placed in the proper position; and (3) it would eliminate the need to pre-treat the joint to remove the osteophyte in a preliminary surgical step, thus reducing surgical time and improving patient safety. Pet. 30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, 10, 12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–117).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,657,827 - Thorley Industries LLC, D/B/A 4moms v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00352 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6, 9–18 on multiple Mariol-based obviousness grounds; claims 7–8 on Mariol-based obviousness, though anticipation by Tharalson was not shown.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction In the Decision on Institution, we determined that the terms in the challenged claims did not need to be construed expressly (Dec. on Inst. 5–6), and we see no reason to modify that determination in light of the record developed at trial. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based on the record, we agree with Petitioner that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the relevant time for the ’180 patent, would have been that of “a mechanical engineer or industrial designer with five or more years of experience in product design and/or manufacturing, including for juvenile products such as play yards and the like (e.g., cribs, play pens, etc.), or equivalent educational and vocational experience.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 24). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“distinction between the record before the Examiner in the request for inter partes reexamination of Chen and the record in this trial. In particular, in this trial, Petitioner proffers as evidence the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Reiner, who testifies that the use of corner beads has certain benefits, such as improved manufacturability and ease of usage. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 67. Therefore, the record in this trial contains the type of evidence that the Examiner found lacking in the request for inter partes reexamination of Chen. Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s proposed modification would complicate assembly ignores the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Reiner.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“of Mr. Reiner, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the corner beads taught by either Pasin, Stoeckler, Rexroad, or Johnston in the play yard of Mariol. In particular, the evidence before us demonstrates that using corner beads would have improved manufacturability and usability of the play yard. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 66. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that corner beads provide strong and durable attachments. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 62. Still further, the evidence demonstrates that modifying Mariol to incorporate corner beads taught by either Pasin, Stoeckler, Rexroad, or Johnston would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded the result a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected— attachment of the enclosure to the posts. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–63. g. Conclusion as to Independent Claims 1, 7, and 11 Based on the record developed during trial, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 1, 7, and 11 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art over Mariol in view of each of Pasin, Stoeckler, Rexroad, and Johnston.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,027,180 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,027,180 - Lavelle Industries, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2017-00159 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 6, 11, or 14 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id. Petitioner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Jones, Patent Owner, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would have had (a) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the design of plumbing components; or (b) a high school degree and at least four years of experience in the design of plumbing components.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 24). Mr. Jones testifies that his opinion is based on his “experiences working in the field of product design in the plumbing industry in addition to the specification and claims of the ‘455 Patent in light of the state of the art in the 2012 time frame.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 24. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Jones is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence that Turner’s sleeves 20, 52 are collapsible. We agree with Patent Owner and Mr. Jones that “flexibility is not the same as collapsibility,” and that Turner thus does not disclose that flexible sleeves 20, 52 necessarily are collapsible. Furthermore, Mr. Jones testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find Turner’s sleeves to be collapsible and “a cylindrical polyethylene wall that is 1/16 or 5/32 of an inch [as disclosed in Turner] would actually be relatively rigid (although still capable of flexing).” Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 65–66. We find this testimony, which is based on Mr. Jones’ “experiences with polyethylene and similar materials and how they have been used in the plumbing industry,” credible and persuasive. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 66. Petitioner, on the other hand, offers no objective evidence supporting its assertion that Turner’s sleeves are collapsible.” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Having considered Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are not persuaded that Schwartz’s intermediate portion 24 is collapsible. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that the passage of Schwartz cited by Petitioner as disclosing collapsibility (line 21 of column 2), fails to suggest that intermediate portion 24 is collapsible. Indeed, this passage merely discloses that ferrule 12 is shaped with radial flange 18. Ex. 1002, 2:21. As such, we are not directed to any disclosure in Schwartz that suggests intermediate portion 24—or any part of ferrule 12—is collapsible. Schwartz discloses that ferrule 12 is made of “chemically inert plastic material” (Ex. 1002, 2:13–14), but insufficient reasoning is given to establish that this material necessarily would be collapsible. Regarding Petitioner’s argument noted above that intermediate portion 24 “must” be collapsible, we agree with Patent Owner that this argument is not persuasive. The assertion that the intermediate portion must at least partially collapse to provide a sealing force against the soil pipe and to take up any variable space present above the pipe is not supported sufficiently by objective evidence or analysis. Furthermore, this assertion is contradicted by Mr. Jones’ testimony, which we credit. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 51.” slip op. at 14
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,273,455
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.