- Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch LtdAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · IPR2014-01361 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–43 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are not shown patentable, and the Second Motion to Amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we discussed the meaning of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” but otherwise found that no claim terms required express construction. Dec. on Inst. 4. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not dispute our interpretation of “consisting essentially of,” or propose constructions for any additional claim terms. Upon review of Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments, we conclude that no explicit constructions are required in order to resolve the issues pending before the Board.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“establishing that it is entitled to add proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). As part of this showing, Patent Owner must demonstrate (1) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (2) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; (3) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Upon review of the Second Motion to Amend, we are persuaded that the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 have been met. For example, Patent Owner seeks to add only two substitute claims, each of which serves to narrow the scope of original claim 18. Mot. 17–18. Patent Owner also identifies exemplary electrolytes disclosed in the originally-filed application that fall within the scope of proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1010, 33, 35–36 (disclosing an electrolyte containing ethylene glycol, water, isobutyric acid, and ammonium hydroxide (which results in an ammonium salt of the organic acid) with a pH of 4.9, a conductivity of 7.1 mS/cm, and an anode breakdown voltage of 395 volts)). Thus, we focus on whether Patent Owner has met its burden of proof to show that proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“Clark, however, discloses successfully substituting acetic acid in an electrolyte solution with “other low molecular weight paraffin acids,” including butyric, propionic, and lactic acids, as well as forming corresponding ammonium salts of these organic acids. Ex. 1003, 2:40–46, 3:46–61. Likewise, GB 466,193 broadly discloses that acetic acid may be replaced in an electrolyte solution with organic acids of the aliphatic series, including butyric acid and isobutyric acid. Ex. 1015, 3:73–79. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not point to any persuasive evidence to support or explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered isobutyric acid, as implied in Clark and expressly identified in GB 466,193, to be a suitable substitute for acetic acid in the electrolyte of Shah. Indeed, similar to the disclosures of Clark and GB 466,193, the ’117 patent discloses that “other relatively weak organic acids of the general formula cnH2+nO2 (where n=2 to 7) are acceptable.”9 Thus, we are not persuaded that Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 fail to teach or suggest every limitation of proposed substitute claim 44.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“1 of Shah is ten times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, and the resulting conductivity (47.5 mS/cm) is 6.7 times higher than that of electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent (7.1 mS/cm). First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3); Ex. 1001, 2:14–16 (confirming that the ammonium salt “provides electrical conductivity” in the electrolyte). Given the disclosure of Evans that anode breakdown voltage decreases with increasing conductivity (conductivity being the inverse of resistivity), Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the 150 volt difference in anode breakdown voltage between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is “contrary to” the teachings of Evans. First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3),11; Ex. 2004, 3 (Figure 4). Nor does Patent Owner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art could not use the disclosure of Evans to modify the resistivity of the electrolyte of Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 to obtain an anode breakdown voltage within the 370 to 400 volt range of proposed substitute claim 45. Thus, we are not persuaded that the 150 volt difference between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is nonobvious or surprising. Patent Owner also contends that if acetic acid was equivalent to isobutyric acid, such that it could be replaced interchangeably, “a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 Patent electrolyte, both of which have almost identical pH~4.9.” First Mot. to Amend 11. We note, however, that, as set forth in Table 3 above, electrolyte 1 of Shah has a conductivity that is 6.7 times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, as well as ten times the ammonium constituent, two and a half times the acid constituent, half the ethylene glycol, and five times the phosphoric acid as compared to electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent. In view of the wide difference in constituents and resulting conductivity levels between the two electrolytes, and in view of the teaching of Evans that anode breakdown voltage depends on the resistivity of the electrolyte, Patent Owner provides insufficient argument or evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that “[i]f acetic acid were equivalent to isobutyric acid . . . a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 patent electrolyte . . . .” First Mot. to Amend 11. Accordingly, even if arguments made in the First Motion to Amend were considered, we would still not be persuaded that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art. Thus, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 6,687,117 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,687,117 - Geox S.P.A. v. Outdry Technologies CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 18, 2015 · IPR2014-01244 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a); the motion to amend claims 16 and 17 is denied for failure to establish written-description support and patentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. Pet. 11. Patent Owner asserts that “[w]aterproofing leather is not a sophisticated technology, and the education level of a PHOSITA working in the industry is likely a four year degree.” PO Resp. 30. According to Patent Owner, a PHOSITA likely would have knowledge related to making apparel from leather, waterproofing leather using sprays and liners, as well as knowledge of adhesives and bonding leather apparel, and also knowledge of waterproof breathable membranes of various types. Id. We consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which Patent Owner essentially summarizes as the knowledge of a PHOSITA. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“interpreted to include either a temporary support that is removed, such as a release sheet, or one that becomes part of the final product, such as a liner. Pet. 11. Patent Owner contends that the term should be construed to be limited to “sheets” because “[n]o other material forms are disclosed other than ‘sheets,’ which include paper and fabric support sheets.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:58–67). According to Patent Owner, the broadest reasonable construction, therefore, “includes any sheet of flexible fabric or fibrous material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” Id. at 7–8. In the Decision on Institution, we construed “support sheet” as “includ[ing] any material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” Dec. on Inst. 6. This construction is based on the Specification, which describes multiple embodiments of the support sheet, including a detachable sheet and an internal liner. Ex. 1001, 2:58–67. The Specification also describes the use of “different materials” to make the support sheet. Id. at 2:63–64. Accordingly, we conclude that the broadest reasonable construction of “support sheet” is not limited to a sheet of fabric or fibrous material as Patent Owner contends, but, rather, explicitly includes “different materials” that can be fastened generally to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane. Therefore, consistent with the Specification, we construe “support sheet” to mean a sheet of any material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“required degree of contact between the membrane and the leather in the regions that are between the dots of adhesive. The ’171 patent summarizes the invention as enabling a membrane to be applied directly to leather by providing a surface of the membrane with a glue pattern. Ex. 1001, 1:56–61. The invention is said to “avoid the use of a semipermeable lining and the water penetration between leather and lining.” Id. at 1:60–61. The title of the invention states “Process for Waterproofing Leather” and describes the leather used in the process as “leather waterproofed by said process.” Id. at 2:27–28. These disclosures do not define either the word “waterproof” as used in the Specification or the word “directly” as recited in independent claims 1 and 9 to mean that there is constant contact between the membrane and leather such that no water permeates the leather, as Patent Owner contends. In an embodiment of the invention, heating of the membrane during pressing is said to result in “a perfect adhesion” that does not plug the pores with glue. Id. at 2:31–42–45. Heating of the membrane during pressing is carried out also in the single example disclosed in the ’171 patent. Id. at 3:12. The leather samples in the example are said to have been “waterproofed by the process according to the present invention” and “hot-pressed with a hydrophilic non-porous semi-permeable membrane of polyurethane material having a thickness of 10 µm.” Id. at 3:9–14. These disclosures of an embodiment and an example do not define “directly pressing” or “waterproofing” or even “perfect adhesion” to mean constant contact between the leather and the membrane or that no water permeates the leather. Therefore, we decline to import such limitations into the term “directly pressing” based on Patent Owner’s argument that these properties are present inherently in the embodiment of the example in the ’171 patent. Accordingly, we construe “directly pressing” to mean applying pressure without any intervening materials or layers other than the recited adhesive.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“combination of Thornton, Scott, and Hayton. Petitioner has established that Thornton’s process for waterproofing leather by using spaced dots of adhesive in a discontinuous configuration on a semi-permeable membrane that is pressed against the leather meets the requirements of claims 1 and 9 but for the dot density and dot size ranges specified by the claims, respectively. Petitioner also provided a rational underpinning for combining the disclosures of Scott and Hayton, which provide guidance for the density and size of adhesive dots to adhere a semi-permeable membrane to a porous layer. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the teachings of Scott and Hayton are unrelated to the problem of adhering a membrane to a leather layer in view of Thornton’s disclosure that both leather and fabric material are amenable to its process for waterproofing breathable articles of clothing. Ex. 1003, 7:58–62. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the combination of Thornton, Scott, and Hayton does not disclose all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The ranges explicitly disclosed in Hayton overlap with the ranges recited in claims 1 and 9. Patent Owner does not argue, and the Specification does not indicate, any criticality associated with the portion of the ranges that are not encompassed by Hayton’s ranges. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rather, the claimed ranges appear once in the Specification as a preferred embodiment when the pattern of thermoadhesive glue is dots of polyurethane glue. Ex. 1001, 2:37–42. Patent Owner’s arguments distinguishing Thornton on the basis that it does not teach constant contact between the membrane and the leather in the regions between the spaced dots of adhesive is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above in connection with Patent Owner’s claim construction argument that this is required by the claim term “directly pressing.” In addition, we find that Thornton’s semi-permeable membrane completely covers the leather layer in the sense that the leather layer surface faces the membrane surface to form a composite. Thornton explicitly describes drawing the membrane barrier component over a former, applying adhesive to the outer surface of the film, drawing the outer glove layer onto the former, and bonding the layers by pressing. Ex. 1003, 21:64–22:8; Reply 9. Thornton also discloses layers on the former are placed in register (Ex. 1003, 21:33–35) and that the composite can be formed face to face in sheets (id. at 6:62–66, 7:13–31; Reply 8).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 6,855,171 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,855,171 - Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch Ltd.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · IPR2015-00713 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 23, 24, 30, and 31.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include disclaimer of the involved application or patent and cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. Id. In light of Patent Owner’s disclaimer of claims 1–44 of the ’077 patent, we determine that entry of judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 23, 24, 30, and 31 of the ’077 patent is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,035,077 - United States Department Of Homeland Security v. Larry GoldenRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 17, 2015 · IPR2014-00714 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place denial of substitute claims 154–156 because they were broader, lacked written description support, and were not shown patentable over the prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id. The request for rehearing “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.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“three independent reasons: (1) substitute claims 154–156 are impermissibly broader than the claims they replaced; (2) Patent Owner failed to show written description support for substitute claims 154–156 as a whole; and (3) Patent Owner failed to show that claims 154–156 were patentable over the prior art of record. Final Dec. 15–21 (improper broadening), 21–22, (written description), 22–31 (prior art of record). Therefore, to succeed on this Rehearing Request, Patent Owner must show that we misapprehended or overlooked matters in reaching each of these determinations. Patent Owner has not done so. We address Patent Owner’s arguments in detail below.” slip op. at 3
- ScopeDenied
“In any event, this priority date argument does not contain any reason why our determination that substitute claims 154–156 are broader in scope than cancelled claims 11, 74, and 81 that they seek to replace was in error. Reh’g Req. 4–5. To the extent that Patent Owner does contest our finding that the claims are broader in scope, we do not find it persuasive because Patent Owner does not show amending a claim to replace a particular species with an entire genus would not be broadening. Thus, this argument regarding priority date does not persuade us that we erred in denying Patent Owner’s motion to amend.” slip op. at 4
- 112 supportDenied
“B. Lack of Written Description Support Patent Owner argues that we should also excuse Patent Owner’s failure to identify written description support for the entire claim because of the “special circumstances” discussed above. Reh’g Req. 2–3. Without determining whether such an exception exists for the requirement of providing written description support for the entire claim, Patent Owner fails to identify anywhere in the Patent Owner Response or Motion to Amend where this argument was raised. Because the argument was not raised, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked it. Thus, we determine that Patent Owner has failed to show that we erred in our determination that the Motion to Amend failed to show written description support for the claim as a whole.” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipation - Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00948 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s adverse-judgment motion, entered judgment against Patent Owner, and cancelled claims 2, 22, 23, and 25.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and it did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,370,371 - Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00947 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,061,551 - Dr. Michael Farmwald / RPX Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00946 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 82, 90, and 91.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). “Judgment” is defined as “a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Although Patent Owner uses the term “termination” in its Motion, it did not submit the Motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and did not explain why termination is appropriate in this circumstance. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (noting that the Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written decision “where appropriate,” such as when the trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)). Under the circumstances presented here, we see no reason not to grant Patent Owner’s Motion. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, this Decision is a Final Written Decision, not a termination of the proceeding.1” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518 B1 (“the ’518 patent”). Paper 1. ParkerVision, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response on September 24, 2014. Paper 7. On December 18, 2014, we instituted this inter partes review of claims 1, 82, 90, and 91 of the ’518 patent. Paper 8.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,266,518 - Avx Corporation / Avx Filters Corporation v. Greatbatch, LtdAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00697 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13–20, 23, 25, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Stevenson and Hazzard, with claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 also obvious over Colburn.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Mr. Galvagni’s testimony is consistent with Patent Owner’s argument that an electrical design expert would be involved in the design of the electrical connections of the feedthrough capacitor assembly, and with the prior art of record, which discloses various methods of connecting, arranging, and electrically coupling the components of the disclosed feedthrough filter capacitor assemblies. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:6–8, 4:66–5:4, 10:14–28; Ex. 1012, 1:27–33, 4:36–43, Fig. 16. Thus, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a degree in electrical engineering, chemistry, or physics, or a related field, and would have work experience in the electrical or structural design of EMI filter capacitors or assemblies.4 4 Patent Owner asserts a level of ordinary skill in the art that is higher than that asserted by Mr. Galvagni, including “advance knowledge” of electrical filtering concepts. PO Resp. 3. We note that, in general, a lower level of skill in the art favors a determination of nonobviousness, while a higher level of skill favors a finding of obviousness. See Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction In the Decision to Institute, we determined that resolution of the issues presented in the Petition did not require explicit construction of any claim terms. Dec. on Inst. 8. We did, however, provide guidance as to the scope of the term “feedthrough filter capacitor.” Id. at 8–9. During trial, neither party asserted that the Board’s prior discussion of “feedthrough filter capacitor” was in need of revision or that any claim terms required construction. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that only claim terms that are in controversy need be construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDenied
“As discussed above, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art must be an electrical designer of EMI filter capacitors, as asserted by Patent Owner. Moreover, a declarant’s expertise and experience need not match perfectly the experience and education of a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide testimony. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The declarant must, instead, have sufficient “knowledge, skill, experience, training, [and] education” of such specialized nature to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702). Mr. Galvagni testifies that he has over 50 years of experience in the field of capacitors, including EMI filter capacitors, and has published numerous technical articles and papers in this field, including on the topics of “low inductance capacitors, actuators, and passive components.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 3. He also testifies that he is named as an inventor on at least 55 U.S. Patents related to capacitors, filters, or similar electronic structures, and has work experience in the design of filter capacitors similar to the ’627 patent, including capacitors with internally connected common ground planes, multiple capacitor access through vertical feeds, and non-circumferential terminations. Ex. 1002 ¶ 5; Ex. 1018 ¶ 8; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 3, 6, 10. Petitioner contends this work experience in feedthrough filter capacitor construction and design would be helpful in understanding the construction and design of the EMI filter capacitor assemblies claimed in the ’627 patent. Resp. to Mot. to Excl. 3. The claims of the ’627 patent are directed to a feedthrough filter capacitor assembly constructed of various individual components. Ex. 1001, 10:64–11:8. Upon review of Mr. Galvagni’s work experience, including his experience relating to the construction and manufacture of EMI filters, we conclude that an adequate relationship exists between Mr. Galvagni’s education and work experience and the claimed invention. See SEB S.A., 594 F.3d at 1373 (finding no error in admitting testimony where the proffering party established an adequate relationship between the expert’s work experience and the claimed invention). Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude the testimony of Mr. Galvagni.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“The evidence of record, however, demonstrates that internally grounding a feedthrough capacitor was known in the art, as was the decreased attenuation from such a design. Modifying a known device, using a known method, to achieve a predictable result, is obvious, even if one is willing to accept a known loss in performance others sought to avoid. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 5,905,627 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,905,627 - NVIDIA Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., LtdInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 20, 2015 · IPR2015-01135 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because NVIDIA did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 7–9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 would have been obvious over Seo and Kong.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner concedes that neither Seo nor Kong discloses a data strobe buffer that outputs a data strobe signal during a “write operation” or that receives a data strobe signal during a “read operation.” Pet. 35 (“Kong discloses a ‘read’ operation in which the data strobe is output . . . .”); see also Ex. 1107 ¶ 90 (Dr. Jacob testifying that, “[w]hen Seo or Kong talk about outputting a data strobe signal, they are talking about a read operation, because a DRAM outputs the data and data strobe signals during a read operation”). Thus, we are not persuaded that Seo and Kong explicitly disclose or suggest a “first driver configured to output a first data strobe signal to the first input/output node during a write operation” or a receiver “coupled to receive a second data strobe signal from the first input/output node and output a third data strobe signal during a read operation,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’734 patent. Ex. 1101, 8:29–34. Petitioner’s argument that the function of the two data strobe buffers is equivalent, i.e., “regardless of where the data strobe buffer is located (in the memory controller or memory device) it is used for both write and read operations,” is not persuasive, because this argument does not address the claims as written. Pet. 24. Moreover, as noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner does not persuasively argue that it would have been obvious to place the data strobe buffer of Seo and Kong in a memory controller, as opposed to a memory device, such that the data strobe buffer would output a data strobe signal “during a write operation” and receive a data strobe signal “during a read operation.” Prelim Resp. 17 (“Petitioner does not—and cannot—allege that it would have been obvious to place the combined system of Seo and Kong in a memory controller.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that the combination of Seo and Kong, as formulated by Petitioner, discloses or suggests every limitation of independent claims 1 and 17 of the ’734 patent.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner concedes that neither Seo nor Kong discloses a data strobe buffer that outputs a data strobe signal during a “write operation” or that receives a data strobe signal during a “read operation.” Pet. 35 (“Kong discloses a ‘read’ operation in which the data strobe is output . . . .”); see also Ex. 1107 ¶ 90 (Dr. Jacob testifying that, “[w]hen Seo or Kong talk about outputting a data strobe signal, they are talking about a read operation, because a DRAM outputs the data and data strobe signals during a read operation”). Thus, we are not persuaded that Seo and Kong explicitly disclose or suggest a “first driver configured to output a first data strobe signal to the first input/output node during a write operation” or a receiver “coupled to receive a second data strobe signal from the first input/output node and output a third data strobe signal during a read operation,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’734 patent. Ex. 1101, 8:29–34. Petitioner’s argument that the function of the two data strobe buffers is equivalent, i.e., “regardless of where the data strobe buffer is located (in the memory controller or memory device) it is used for both write and read operations,” is not persuasive, because this argument does not address the claims as written. Pet. 24. Moreover, as noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner does not persuasively argue that it would have been obvious to place the data strobe buffer of Seo and Kong in a memory controller, as opposed to a memory device, such that the data strobe buffer would output a data strobe signal “during a write operation” and receive a data strobe signal “during a read operation.” Prelim Resp. 17 (“Petitioner does not—and cannot—allege that it would have been obvious to place the combined system of Seo and Kong in a memory controller.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that the combination of Seo and Kong, as formulated by Petitioner, discloses or suggests every limitation of independent claims 1 and 17 of the ’734 patent.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 7,804,734 - PTAB · Oct 1, 2015 · IPR2014-00714 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 11, 74, and 81 and denied substitute claims 154–156 because they broadened claim scope, lacked written-description support, and were not shown patentable over Mostov.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“A petition for inter partes review must identify “all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Generally, a party does not become a “real party-in-interest” merely through association with another party in an unrelated endeavor. Id. A party also is not considered a real party in interest in an inter partes review solely because it is a joint defendant with a petitioner in a patent infringement suit or is part of a joint defense group with a petitioner in the suit. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a “real party-in-interest” to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term “real party-in-interest” to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. Here, even assuming this contention is timely, Patent Owner has failed to provide any evidence, besides the mere fact that the other parties are co-defendants in a lawsuit or alleged infringers, to support the contention that Petitioner has failed to name all of the real parties in interest. That one fact, without any further proof of control or involvement by these parties in this proceeding, is insufficient to establish that Petitioner has failed to name” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“ii. Petitioner’s Expert Patent Owner asks that we “dismiss [Petitioner’s] Expert Declaration and disqualify [Petitioner’s Declarant] for making and using a false writing.” PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s Declarant falsely claimed that certain patent applications were patents by listing them under the heading “Patents” in his Resume. Id. at 8–9. A Patent Owner Response is not the proper vehicle to seek to exclude testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Moreover, even if it were the proper vehicle, we are not persuaded that the alleged “falsehood” that Patent Owner identified—listing patent applications, which are clearly identified as such, under a heading titled “Patents”—is, in any way, misleading. Thus, we decline Patent Owner’s request that we dismiss Dr. Vishwanath’s testimony.3 C. Motion to Amend As discussed above, in the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner requests” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“i. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Neither party puts forward a succinct definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s declarant, however, has put forward a detailed discussion of various references dated before April 20064 (the date Patent Owner now alleges is the priority date) related to subject matter of the ’990 patent. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–74, 94–99. We have reviewed that discussion and the references cited in those paragraphs. We have found it accurately reflects the teachings of the references. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner’s declarant that the references are analogous to the claimed invention, and, as such, represent the level of skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91(CCPA 1978) (“[T]he PTO usually must evaluate . . . the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words of the literature.”); see 4 We accept this date as the priority date only for the sake of argument. also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”’).” slip op. at 13
- ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner and find, based on the Patent Owner’s own arguments, that these terms improperly broaden the scope of the claims. As Patent Owner explains, the added language is broad enough to include the removed items, and is intended to reflect the entire genus of “monitoring equipment” and “communications devices” that “are capable of communication and capable of receiving signals.” Mot. to Amend 4, 5. Thus, the claim has been broadened to not only include the listed species that have been removed, but anything falling within the claimed genus. Accordingly, we find that this amendment impermissibly broadens the claim. As for the second change in the claim language, we find that Patent Owner has failed to show why removal of the entire passage “wherein, the communication device receives a signal via any of one or more products listed in any of the plurality of product grouping categories,” would not impermissibly broaden the scope of claim 154. The deletion of this limitation necessarily broadens the claim in that limitation’s aspect. See In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“For example, a reissue claim that deletes a limitation or element from the patent claims is broader in that limitation’s aspect.”). Given that Patent Owner has entirely deleted this limitation and Patent Owner bears the burden of showing entitlement to the amendment, it was incumbent on Patent Owner to explain why removing this entire passage from claim 154 would not broaden the scope of the claim. See In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“[A] claim is broadened if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects.”).” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation
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.