• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00147 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–6 and 8–20 not shown unpatentable under three obviousness grounds, principally because the proposed combinations did not establish a feasible curved battery or transparent potting encapsulating the components.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, e.g., sensor system design, including inertial and other motion sensor system design, and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 25. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’124 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We need not reach the issue of whether the preamble is limiting for purposes of determining patentability of the challenged claims. Even were we to agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting and the claims are limited to a finger-worn ring wearable computer device, Petitioner has relied on Schröder in each ground to disclose a “wearable computing device configured to be worn around a finger of a wearer.” Pet. 22 (Ground 1), 45 (Ground 2, relying on Yuen for adding the functionality of light sources with a photodetector, temperature sensors, and varying the sampling frequency of sensor data acquisition), 56 (Ground 3). We agree with Petitioner that Schröder discloses such a device. Thus, no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and find that Patent Owner has the better position for several reasons. First, the record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “would have to be reduced in size on the 6 There is no Exhibit 2022 in the record of this case. magnitude of 5-10x from its current size to fit in a ring of Schröder.” Resp. 38 (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Second, Petitioner relies on evidence in the Reply that Petitioner failed to specifically identify in the Petition. Compare Reply 3–5 (citing Ex. 1369 ¶¶ 7–14; Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 47, 71; Ex. 2022, 138:7–143:1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96, 337; Ex. 2021, 12–13, 307:7–17; Ex. 2020, 212:6–214:13; Ex. 1081, 130:18–131:14; Ex. 1010 ¶ 168), 9 (referring back to Section § II.B.2) with Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 157, 163, 168, 201, Fig. 6). More specifically, while the portion of Dr. Anthony’s Declaration cited in the Petition (see Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99)) mentions the Technology Background Section V of his Declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–147), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Anthony sufficiently explains what evidence supports his opinion that it was feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices into finger-rings, or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have miniaturized a curved battery for incorporation into Schröder’s ring. Ex. 1002 ¶ 196 (describing that rechargeable batteries powering wearable electronic devices were “well-known by 2013” and “had also undergone significant advances in terms of miniaturization and energy density [that] made it feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices such as supercapacitors into smaller form factors, such as finger rings, without sacrificing functionality” such as “lithium-polymer (Li-Po) batteries and solid-state batteries.”). Moreover, some of Petitioner’s citations in the Reply appear to be incorrect as there is no Exhibit 2022 of record in this case, as noted above. These issues undermine the strength of Petitioner’s showing by making it difficult to follow its reasoning, much less identify where in the record that reasoning finds support. See 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.”); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Third, even considering Petitioner’s new Reply arguments and” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony over Dr. Anthony’s and agree that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to account for the constraints of a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 140. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’124 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’124 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 140). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 141. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura patent), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 74–84. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 85. We also agree with Dr. Mercier that Dr. Anthony’s testimony lacks evidence or a technical analysis of the power requirements for the various sensors he suggests including in a wearable device and the capacity of the proposed GMBPow battery. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 210, 214–17; Ex. 2018 ¶ 97. Moreover, Dr. Anthony does not address the issues with the batteries that are identified in the references he discusses. For example, Dr. Anthony does not address Lee’s disclosure that “direct coating of electrode slurry onto plain paper led to the occasional internal-shorting of the device due to the leakage of the electrode material through a large-sized hole in the paper.” Ex. 1019, 2415. In contrast, Dr. Mercier discusses the pitfalls the skilled artisan faced in developing finger-ring devices. See, e.g., Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 77–79 (discussing the issues Rhee’s and Asada’s large rings), 83 (identifying power requirements as a design constraint). For example, Dr. Mercier explains that “flexible or curved batteries include flexible packaging materials such as aluminum laminated films that house the electrodes and electrolyte” such that “once the battery packaging is added to a battery such as GMBPow and then placed within a housing (e.g., external housing shell and internal potting), the resulting device would have dimensions that are not suitable for a finger-worn ring.” Id. ¶ 96 (citing Ex. 2026).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,188,124 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,188,124
• Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29

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

    “Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,906,508
• MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. / MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · IPR2023-00016 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–6 not shown unpatentable because unexpected results outweighed the prima facie obviousness case, and granted Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”)See Paper 83 (“CAFC Decision”). The Federal Circuit did not disturb our determination that Petitioner “established a prima facie case of obviousness.” See CAFC Dec. 6–8. However, it took issue with the unexpected results analysis in the Decision, explaining that “without more explanation from the Board as to its determination that the experiments [offered by Patent Owner to show unexpected results] compared the challenged claims to the closest prior art, we cannot reach a judgment on MSN’s challenges to the Board’s holding of non-obviousness.” Id. at 14. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated the Decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the unexpected results evidence. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner and credit Dr. Davies’s testimony (Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 210–215) that a POSA would not have expected the Glu3 substitution to produce such a result. Indeed, the premise for Petitioner’s “conservative substitution” rationale is that the Glu3 substitution would have been expected to produce an analog having similar properties to human uroguanylin. See, e.g., Pet. 1, 36 (stating that a POSA “would have expected this particular conservative substitution to retain excellent receptor-activating activity”); Reply 3 (urging that the reason to modify a known compound may be an expectation that the new compound will have “similar properties to the old”) (internal quotations omitted). Patent Owner’s HPLC data, however, demonstrate a difference in kind between the data for SP-304 (a single HPLC peak) and uroguanylin (two distinct peaks corresponding to the active and inactive topoisomer) after incubation under the same conditions. As Dr. Davies explains, “topoisomers exist as a mixture of compounds with different[] spatial conformations” that are “continuously interconverting between spatial conformations” with “varying degrees of interconversion stability.” See Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 51–56. Thus, Patent Owner’s data show that the Glu3 substitution results in a peptide that is demonstrably more stable against interconversion than the parent, unmodified peptide.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia with nexusObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s evidence persuasive to show that the Glu3 substitution results in an unexpected improvement in interconversion stability. As explained above, RP-HPLC was a known technique for separating the topoisomers of human uroguanylin. Ex. 2010, 230–231; Ex. 2011, 27–28; Ex. 2020, 223; Ex. 2028, TRUL00018269; see also Ex. 1063 ¶¶ 37, 40 (Petitioner’s expert confirming same). It was also known that one of human uroguanylin’s topoisomers was biologically active, whereas the other, i.e., what we and the parties refer to as the “inactive” topoisomer, had significantly less or no activity at the same concentration. Ex. 2011, 31 (“compound I shows significant activity in the cGMP producing assay, whereas compound II is practically inactive”); see also Ex. 2010, 238–239 (Fig. 8) (showing the “A isomer” had a potency “with a minimal concentration between 10-7and 10-8 M,” but that the B isomer “had virtually no effect on cGMP level at 10-6 M”); Ex. 2074, 48 (compound II “showed maximal 10% of the activity of compound I at 10-6 M”). The chromatograph for uroguanylin in Patent Owner’s data is consistent with these teachings, showing two peaks representing the active and inactive topoisomers. Compare Ex. 2028, TRUL00018269 (Fig. 1) with Ex. 2011, 28 (Fig. 2). The chromatograph for SP-304 shows a markedly different result, i.e., a “single peak,” which was confirmed “using the cGMP T84 cell assay” to represent “the fully active conformer of SP-304.” Ex. 2028, TRUL00018269; Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 208–209. We agree with Patent Owner and credit Dr. Davies’s testimony (Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 210–215) that a POSA would not have expected the Glu3 substitution to produce such a result. Indeed, the premise for Petitioner’s “conservative substitution” rationale is that the Glu3 substitution would have been expected to produce an analog having similar properties to human uroguanylin. See, e.g., Pet. 1, 36 (stating that a POSA “would have expected this particular conservative substitution to retain excellent receptor-activating activity”); Reply 3 (urging that the reason to modify a known compound may be an expectation that the new compound will have “similar properties to the old”) (internal quotations omitted). Patent Owner’s HPLC data, however, demonstrate a difference in kind between the data for SP-304 (a single HPLC peak) and uroguanylin (two distinct peaks corresponding to the active and inactive topoisomer) after incubation under the same conditions. As Dr. Davies explains, “topoisomers exist as a mixture of compounds with different[] spatial conformations” that are “continuously interconverting between spatial conformations” with “varying degrees of interconversion stability.” See Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 51–56. Thus, Patent Owner’s data show that the Glu3 substitution results in a peptide that is demonstrably more stable against interconversion than the parent, unmodified peptide.” slip op. at 34

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “motion. The American Peptide letter contains out of court statements from a third party submitted by the EPO opponent. The statements in the letter were not made under oath, nor is there evidence that Patent Owner was ever able to question the author of that letter or anyone else with personal knowledge of the statements therein. Petitioner argues that the American Peptide letter is evidence “to doubt that the ‘singular peak’ for uroguanylin in Liu represents the active topoisomer of uroguanylin” because it evidences that American Peptide “provided its customers with the ‘B’ (i.e., inactive) form of uroguanylin at the time.” Pet. Remand Resp. 25. That is, Petitioner relies on the American Peptide letter for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Such use plainly implicates the rule against hearsay and falls squarely within our prior reasoning for excluding the Currie submission portion of Exhibit 1067. We incorporate that analysis herein. See Dec. 61–72. Petitioner asserts that the American Peptide letter is admissible under the residual hearsay exception in FRE 807. MTE Opp. 3–5. We disagree. The American Peptide letter was submitted by the EPO opponent specifically for the purpose of opposing a foreign counterpart to the ’786 patent. We see no reason to distinguish it from the other materials previously excluded as hearsay in the Currie submission. Petitioner’s assertion that it contains sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness because it was “provided by a neutral third-party” (American Peptide) and “an individual having first- hand knowledge, [American Peptide Company’s] VP of sales and marketing” is speculation. See id. at 3–4. Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has never been afforded an opportunity to examine anyone regarding the statements in this letter or even confirm that it is, in fact, a letter from the American Peptide Company. The mere fact that it was submitted in a foreign patent proceeding does not make it any more trustworthy than any other untested assertion offered by an adverse party in a legal proceeding.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,041,786
• MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. / MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · IPR2022-00722 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable because the unexpected results from the Glu3 substitution outweighed the prima facie obviousness showing; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was granted.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “More specifically, the Federal Circuit identified “three reasons” why “the Board’s determination that the[se] experiments compared the claimed invention with the closest prior art lack[ed] adequate explanation” and instructed us to address these issues on remand. See CAFC Dec. 11–13. First, the Court stated we “should determine, based on the evidence put forward by the parties, whether plecanatide exhibits topoisomerism and whether the testing of the challenged claims should encompass both the active and inactive forms.” Id. at 12.3 Second, the Court instructed us to reconsider what the closest prior art compound is in view of Patent Owner’s “contention that highly pure A-form uroguanylin could be maintained as a lyophilized powder,” noting that “[i]f it is true . . . that uroguanylin can be maintained and therefore tested in its active A form as a lyophilized powder, that would support that the experiments [which were conducted in solution] did not use the closest prior art.” Id. Third, the Court observed that the Decision did not sufficiently address “whether the experiments submitted by [Patent Owner] actually used” the closest prior art and instructed the Board “to reevaluate the experimental evidence consistent” with the determinations noted above. Id. at 12–13.” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “In sum, we find that there is a sufficient nexus between Patent Owner’s results and the challenged claims and that those results are reasonably commensurate with the same. Accordingly, for all of reasons explained above, the unexpected results Patent Owner relies upon are probative of non-obviousness. E. Conclusion for Ground 1 Weighing the record as a whole in view of the findings and analysis above as well as our findings and analysis relating to Petitioner’s prima facie showing in the Decision, we conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Currie and Li. The evidence suggesting that it would have been obvious to make the Glu3 substitution because it is a conservative substitution (see Dec. 20–38 (§ III.E.ii)) is substantially outweighed by Patent Owner’s comparatively strong evidence demonstrating unexpected results relating to improved interconversion stability, potency, and binding affinity from the Glu3 substitution. See Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Evidence of objective indicia [such as unexpected results] ‘can be the most probative evidence of nonobviousness in the record,’ and . . . enable[s] ‘the court to avert the trap of hindsight.’”) (quoting Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Indeed, the interconversion and potency categories of Patent Owner’s unexpected results showing are particularly strong such that even without the additional results in Liu, we would still reach the same ultimate conclusion on obviousness. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 56

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

    “same combination of Currie and Li for the limitations of claim 1 and the similar limitations recited in the other independent claims. In the Decision, we found that, based on the teachings in those references, an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have been motivated both to select human uroguanylin as a lead compound and modify its sequence by making a conservative Glu3 substitution for uroguanylin’s Asp3. Dec. 15–37. We did not, however, credit Petitioner’s other purported rationales for that modification. Id. at 34–37. Those findings were not disturbed on appeal. See CAFC Dec. 6–8 (rejecting 9 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective after the filing of the application that led to the ’786 patent. Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. 10 U.S. Pat. 5,489,670, issued Feb. 6, 1996 (Ex. 1005) (“Currie”). 11 Z. Li et al., Purification, cDNA Sequence, and Tissue Distribution of Rat Uroguanylin, 68 Regulatory Peptides 45–56 (1997) (Ex. 1006) (“Li”). 12 R. Narayani et al., Polymer-coated Gelatin Capsules as Oral Delivery Devices and their Gastrointestinal Tract Behavior in Humans, 7 J. Biomater. Sci. Polymer Edn. 39–48 (1995) (Ex. 1007) (“Narayani”). 13 M. Campieri et al., Oral Budesonide is as Effective as Oral Prednisolone in Active Crohn’s Disease, 41 Gut 209–214 (1997) (Ex. 1008) (“Campieri”). 14 U.S. Pat. 5,359,030, issued Oct. 25, 1994 (Ex. 1009) (“Ekwuribe”). Patent Owner’s alternative arguments for affirmance). We incorporate by reference the portions of the Decision addressing Petitioner’s prima facie showing herein. See Dec. 8–37 (§§ III.A–D and E.i–ii). We consider the findings and explanation therein to the extent it bears on our analysis below.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “motion. The American Peptide letter contains out of court statements from a third party submitted by the EPO opponent. The statements in the letter were not made under oath, nor is there evidence that Patent Owner was ever able to question the author of that letter or anyone else with personal knowledge of the statements therein. Petitioner argues that the American Peptide letter is evidence “to doubt that the ‘singular peak’ for uroguanylin in Liu represents the active topoisomer of uroguanylin” because it evidences that American Peptide “provided its customers with the ‘B’ (i.e., inactive) form of uroguanylin at the time.” Pet. Remand Resp. 25. That is, Petitioner relies on the American Peptide letter for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Such use plainly implicates the rule against hearsay and falls squarely within our prior reasoning for excluding the Currie submission portion of Exhibit 1067. We incorporate that analysis herein. See Dec. 61–72. Petitioner asserts that the American Peptide letter is admissible under the residual hearsay exception in FRE 807. MTE Opp. 3–5. We disagree. The American Peptide letter was submitted by the EPO opponent specifically for the purpose of opposing a foreign counterpart to the ’786 patent. We see no reason to distinguish it from the other materials previously excluded as hearsay in the Currie submission. Petitioner’s assertion that it contains sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness because it was “provided by a neutral third-party” (American Peptide) and “an individual having first- hand knowledge, [American Peptide Company’s] VP of sales and marketing” is speculation. See id. at 3–4. Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has never been afforded an opportunity to examine anyone regarding the statements in this letter or even confirm that it is, in fact, a letter from the American Peptide Company. The mere fact that it was submitted in a foreign patent proceeding does not make it any more trustworthy than any other untested assertion offered by an adverse party in a legal proceeding. For these reasons, we grant Patent Owner’s motion to exclude page 86 of Exhibit 1067.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,041,786
• Netflix Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00646 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable because Kaku was not established as analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot shown unpatentableNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The field of endeavor test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–27. A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for three claim terms, including the term “trick play functionality.” Pet. 22–23. Patent Owner argues for construction of the related claim term “the first and second indexes enabling trick play functionality.” See PO Resp. 41–49. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of those claim terms because construction of the proposed terms does not impact our determination that Petitioner has not shown that one of the prior art references is analogous to the claimed invention. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached

    “Under the particular circumstances in this case, we need not assess the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. As discussed above, we have determined that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance that Kaku is analogous prior art to the ’792 patent and do not reach Petitioner’s arguments on the motivation to combine Kaku with Zetts or Seo. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 34

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “As discussed above (supra § III.E.4.a), Petitioner’s papers fail to link Dr. Reader’s declaration testimony on the level of ordinary skill in the art to the analogous art inquiry and fail to identify a field of endeavor for the ’792 patent. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s demonstrative slide 53 presents improper new arguments that have not been previously made. See Paper 38, 2 (“The parties may only rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments that have been previously made in the submitted papers. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the hearing.”), 5 (“Demonstratives are not a mechanism for making new arguments.”). We therefore sustain Patent Owner’s objections. We note, however, that demonstratives are not evidence. See id. at 5 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the hearing are not evidence, nor will they be relied upon as evidence. Rather, demonstratives are visual aids to a party’s oral presentation regarding arguments and evidence previously presented and discussed in the papers”); CTPG 84 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the final hearing are aids to oral argument and not evidence.”). In this Final Written Decision, we rely solely on the arguments properly presented in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record, not on the demonstratives.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,472,792 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,472,792
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2021 · IPR2019-01379 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 17 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Huang because Petitioner did not establish an adequate motivation to combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in image and/or video processing.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 42). Patent Owner neither comments on that proposal, nor proposes an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. 5 The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art, we apply it for purposes of this Decision. In our view, moreover, the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art at the time of the invention).” slip op. at 9

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

    “00052, which also involves the ’651 patent, the Board construed the term “level of detail” as “level of change of visual elements across adjacent pixels,” and that the same construction should apply here. PO Resp. 58–60 (citing IPR2020-00052, Paper 42). Petitioner does not propose a construction for that term, but argues that “the combined Kim and Huang teachings would determine the level of detail for adjacent pixels under Patent Owner’s ‘adjacent pixels’ construction.” Pet. Reply 5–11. Because our ultimate decision does not rest on the construction of that claim term, we do not construe the term in this proceeding. 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.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). As part of our obviousness analysis, we address additional claim construction arguments regarding the “determining” limitation. See infra § III.E.1.a.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that these exhibits represent expressions of opinion of unnamed users that Patent Owner relies on to show cotemporaneous praise existed. These exhibits are cited in the Hanson Declaration only as evidence of industry praise, i.e., to support testimony based on his personal knowledge. See Ex. 2045 ¶ 51. And although Mr. Hanson quotes statements from these exhibits in his declaration, their relevance lies in that they allegedly reflect praise for DivX’s deblocking method. For example, the statement by user “temperance”—that Petitioner objects to as being relied on for the truth of the matter asserted (Paper 46, 1– 2)—is offered to show that “[t]here was plenty of healthy debate on the boards about the quality of the new version of the codec,” and “many commenters specifically praised the deblocking.” See Ex. 2045 ¶ 46. Moreover, it is clear that these are merely opinions of online users, not factual assertions. See id. (quoting temperance: “IMHO, DivX 6 deblocking is better (for metrics and eyes) than xvid’s”) (emphasis added); see Sonos, slip op. at 7 (separating admissible expressions of opinions that constitute praise from bare factual assertions). Other statements that Petitioner objects to (Paper 46, 2) are similarly opinions of online users, not factual assertions that Patent Owner relies upon for the truth of the matter stated therein. We are therefore not persuaded that Exhibits 2018–2030 and 2032–2033 contain inadmissible hearsay.11 See Cisco Sys., Paper 41 at 50–51 (allowing exhibits cited only as evidence of industry praise); Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., IPR2018-00255, 2020 WL 2595492, at *2 (PTAB May 21, 2020) (citing Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., 13-CV-00457-JST, 2014 WL 12644295, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014)).” slip op. at 55

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not detail Petitioner’s newly proposed interpretation of this claim limitation. See Pet. 29–36 (arguing only that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kim determines the level of detail for a region comprising an 8 x 8 block of pixels of a reconstructed video frame). On the contrary, the Petition argued: [T]he prior art cited in this Petition teaches and suggests exactly what is claimed and what allegedly distinguished the claims from Kim II: determining the level of detail of a region that includes pixels from multiple rows and multiple columns that encompass pixels immediately adjacent to at least two sides of the block boundary, and selecting a filter to apply.” Pet. 18 (emphasis added).6 Under these circumstances, we consider Petitioner’s new argument waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ 6 Petitioner refers to a different prior art reference, U.S. Patent No. 6,983,079, cited by the examiner during the prosecution of the ’651 patent, as Kim II. the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,139,651 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,139,651
• Masterimage 3d, Inc. / Masterimage 3d Asia, LLC v. Reald Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00035 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board denied cancellation of claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show Schuck was entitled to the provisional filing date, so it was not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “as those presented in Dynamic Drinkware, with a few exceptions. The main difference is that here, Patent Owner did not have the burden to antedate Schuck because the ’455 patent was filed before the actual filing date of Schuck. The result of that difference is that the burden of production started with Petitioner and remains with Petitioner to establish that Schuck is entitled to claim priority to the ’657 provisional. Dynamic Drinkware is clear in that Petitioner is required to “compare the claims of . . . [Schuck] to the disclosure in the . . . [’657] provisional application.” Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit explained: “A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.” Id. (citing In re Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527, 537 (CCPA 1981)). Petitioner acknowledges that the ’657 provisional fails to provide support under § 112, first paragraph, for Schuck’s claim 1. Supp. Reply 4. Petitioner’s claim chart, submitted as “Appendix 1” to its Supplemental Reply, indicates that the ’657 provisional refers to a “doublet lens” rather than a “telephoto lens pair.” Id. at App. 1, A-5. And Petitioner does not argue that the “doublet lens” provides support for the recited “telephoto lens pair.” See generally id.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “It is only “confidential information” that may be protected from disclosure, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(7), and, even then, there is a public interest in “maintaining a complete and understandable file history” of the proceeding. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). The party moving to seal bears the burden of proof in showing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for patent owner

    “as those presented in Dynamic Drinkware, with a few exceptions. The main difference is that here, Patent Owner did not have the burden to antedate Schuck because the ’455 patent was filed before the actual filing date of Schuck. The result of that difference is that the burden of production started with Petitioner and remains with Petitioner to establish that Schuck is entitled to claim priority to the ’657 provisional. Dynamic Drinkware is clear in that Petitioner is required to “compare the claims of . . . [Schuck] to the disclosure in the . . . [’657] provisional application.” Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit explained: “A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.” Id. (citing In re Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527, 537 (CCPA 1981)). Petitioner acknowledges that the ’657 provisional fails to provide support under § 112, first paragraph, for Schuck’s claim 1. Supp. Reply 4. Petitioner’s claim chart, submitted as “Appendix 1” to its Supplemental Reply, indicates that the ’657 provisional refers to a “doublet lens” rather than a “telephoto lens pair.” Id. at App. 1, A-5. And Petitioner does not argue that the “doublet lens” provides support for the recited “telephoto lens pair.” See generally id.” slip op. at 14

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

    “for multiple reasons. First, Petitioner acknowledges that what it refers to as “the Milburn doctrine” was codified in 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and Petitioner does not show persuasively that we should read Milburn as requiring anything beyond application of that statutory section in light of the facts presented here. Supp. Reply 6. Second, Milburn did not address directly the question of whether an issued patent is entitled to claim priority to a provisional patent application, and, specifically, what must be shown in order to do so. Third, Schuck claims priority to not one, but three provisional applications, which was not the case in Milburn. Fourth, in Giacomini, the Federal Circuit expressly considered Milburn and stated: “An important limitation [on 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1)] is that the provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.” Giacomini, 612 F.2d at 1383 (emphasis added). Although the Federal Circuit did not address the application of the argument—that the reference patent’s provisional application fails to provide written description support for the claimed subject matter—in Giacomini, because the appellant had waived it, the Federal Circuit’s decision acknowledges that there was an argument that could have been raised. Id. Finally, Dynamic Drinkware is directly on point and clearly establishes that Petitioner is required to show that the claimed invention of Schuck finds written description support in the ’657 provisional in order to rely on the ’657 provisional’s filing date. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. It is undisputed that Petitioner has not done so. We find that Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 or any other claim of Schuck is supported by the ’657 provisional, and, thus, Petitioner has not shown that Schuck is entitled to claim priority to the ’657 provisional’s filing date. See Apple, Case IPR2015-00969, slip op. at 12–13. The result of our finding is that Schuck does not qualify as prior art, under § 102(e), to the ’455 patent, and, therefore, is not a reference which may be relied upon to establish the unpatentability of claims in an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (“A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 1–8, 10–14, and 16–22 are unpatentable as anticipated by Schuck and (2) claims 9, 15, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious over Schuck and APA.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,857,455 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,857,455

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.