• Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00707 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 5 is unpatentable over Gao-2 and over Gao-2 with Goubet; claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable on any ground, and substitute claim 17 was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose explicit constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 16–17; PO Resp. 5–6. Based on the complete record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “As an initial matter, the record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration for allegedly not reviewing the parties’ claim constructions. See Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1046, 115:15–18). Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited 11 This refers to the recitation in clauses 1F and 5F that the “diffusion assembly is disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber.” discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1; see also Pet. Reply 3 (arguing that “Dr. Micklow’s opinion that the prior art does not render the claims obvious is premised on an interpretation of certain claim limitations that are inconsistent with both parties’ constructions” (emphasis added)). Instead, we read Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also id. at 115:15–18 (“I don’t know if I would even apply claim construction. I applied engineering principles to a document that had been published with the patent office.”).” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “referring to the same direction as the separation of the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber” (vertically in both Figure 6 of the challenged patent and Figure 1 of Goubet), we turn back now to Petitioner’s discussion of clause 1F, which includes the limitation at issue. There, Petitioner does not discuss why the “diffusion assembly” is allegedly “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber,” but instead, Petitioner discusses why a component of the “diffusion assembly”—the “atomizer assembly”—is allegedly “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber”: Pet. 39. In the end, we need not assess whether the “atomizer assembly” identified by Petitioner is “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber” under the proper construction of that term (which, again, we need not and do not determine here) because the “disposed between” limitation does not involve the “atomizer assembly.” Instead, we find that, by failing to address why the identified “diffusion assembly” is “disposed between” the identified “upper chamber” and “lower chamber,” Petitioner has failed to provide persuasive evidence that Goubet discloses or suggests the “disposed between” limitation. Pet. 38–39 (discussing the claim language “said diffusion assembly is disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber” but only discussing the location of the “atomizer assembly”); see 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review . . . , the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”). For the reasons above, we find, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Goubet discloses or suggests the “disposed between” limitation.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,092,918 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,092,918
• Kubota North America Corporation v. Vermeer Manufacturing CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2026 · IPR2025-00169 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 50–54 are unpatentable as obvious over KR996 and JP705; claims 55–63, 68, 69, and 80–85 were not shown unpatentable over KR996, JP705, Bares, and Beltrami.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(“This language is merely exemplary, using reference numerals to refer to the embodiment’s features and qualifying ‘single weldment’ as referring ‘generally’ to specific embodiments.”). The Iowa District Court reached the same conclusion. See Ex. 1020 at 4 (holding that “‘mainframe’ will be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not require a single weldment” (emphasis added)), cited at Pet. Init. CC Br. 2; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”).” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, secondary considerations (objective evidence of non-obviousness) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s objective indicia of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 57

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “e) Conclusion as to the Independent Claim 50 For the reasons discussed above, the evidence presented by Petitioner” slip op. at 67

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part

    “For these reasons, we are persuaded by Petitioner to exclude, as” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,321,386 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,321,386
• Kubota North America Corporation v. Vermeer Manufacturing CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2026 · IPR2025-00167 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13, 21, 22, 64, and 65 are unpatentable over the asserted grounds; claims 15, 17, 19, 20, 23–30, 66, and 67 were not shown unpatentable over KR996, JP705, and Beltrami.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “B. Analysis “The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “lexicographical, we agree with the parties that “mainframe” is not limited to a single weldment. Pet. Init. CC Br. 1; PO Init. CC Br. 1–2. Instead, a single-weldment “mainframe” is merely one disclosed embodiment. See Pet. Init. CC Br. 3 (stating that “by including the term ‘generally’ in a statement, the feature (i.e., single weldment) is expressly identified as merely included in some, but not all embodiments”); PO Init. CC Br. 3 (“This language is merely exemplary, using reference numerals to refer to the embodiment’s features and qualifying ‘single weldment’ as referring ‘generally’ to specific embodiments.”). The Iowa District Court reached the same conclusion. See Ex. 1020 at 4 (holding that “‘mainframe’ will be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not require a single weldment” (emphasis added)), cited at Pet. Init. CC Br. 2; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”).” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, secondary considerations (objective evidence of non-obviousness) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s objective indicia of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 9,321,386 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,321,386
• Kubota North America Corporation v. Vermeer Manufacturing CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2026 · IPR2025-00171 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 28 are unpatentable over KR996; claims 14–16 and 19–27 were not shown unpatentable over Bares and Beltrami.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(“This language is merely exemplary, using reference numerals to refer to the embodiment’s features and qualifying ‘single weldment’ as referring ‘generally’ to specific embodiments.”). The Iowa District Court reached the same conclusion. See Ex. 1020 at 4 (holding that “‘mainframe’ will be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not require a single weldment” (emphasis added)), cited at Pet. Init. CC Br. 2; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). Turning to the prosecution history, neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner has highlighted any specific statements that impact the scope of the term “mainframe.” And from our independent review, we do not discern any such statements. For these reasons, the intrinsic evidence as a whole supports construing “mainframe” as a primary supporting structure.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, secondary considerations (objective evidence of non-obviousness) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s objective indicia of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 54

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “For these reasons, we are persuaded by Petitioner to exclude, as” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,202,266 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,202,266
• Kubota North America Corporation v. Vermeer Manufacturing CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2026 · IPR2025-00170 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable over KR996 and the KR996/Bares combination; Petitioner did not prove claims 19–36 unpatentable over KR996, Bares, and Beltrami.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “(10) Conclusion as to Objective Indicia We have considered, as a whole, all of Patent Owner’s arguments and admissible evidence concerning secondary considerations. If we were to presume nexus, we give some weight to Patent Owner’s admissible evidence of industry praise and skepticism at the time of invention. d. Conclusion as to Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above (§§ II.F.2.a–b), the evidence” slip op. at 62

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

    “probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, secondary considerations (objective evidence of non-obviousness) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Our obviousness” slip op. at 52

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

    “lexicographical, we agree with the parties that “mainframe” is not limited to a single weldment. Pet. Init. CC Br. 1; PO Init. CC Br. 1–2. Instead, a single-weldment “mainframe” is merely one disclosed embodiment. See Pet. Init. CC Br. 3 (stating that “by including the term ‘generally’ in a statement, the feature (i.e., single weldment) is expressly identified as merely included in some, but not all embodiments”); PO Init. CC Br. 3 (“This language is merely exemplary, using reference numerals to refer to the embodiment’s features and qualifying ‘single weldment’ as referring ‘generally’ to specific embodiments.”). The Iowa District Court reached the same conclusion. See Ex. 1020 at 4 (holding that “‘mainframe’ will be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not require a single weldment” (emphasis added)), cited at Pet. Init. CC Br. 2; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). Turning to the prosecution history, neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner has highlighted any specific statements that impact the scope of the term “mainframe.” And from our independent review, we do not discern any such statements. For these reasons, the intrinsic evidence as a whole supports construing “mainframe” as a primary supporting structure.” slip op. at 33

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “2. Analysis “The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.20. a. Exhibits 1005, 1006, and 1014 Exhibit 1005 is an English language translation of Korean Patent No. 10-1041996. Exhibit 1006 is an English language translation of Japanese document JP2004-17705A. Exhibit 1014 is an English language translation of Korean Patent No. 10-1023528. A Certification of Translation signed by Takashi Maeshiro of HC Language Solutions, Inc., accompanies each of Exhibits 1005, 1006, and 1014. Ex. 1005 at 28; Ex. 1006 at 16; Ex. 1014 at 16. Each Certification of Translation is worded substantially the same except for the references to the document at issue and the source language being either Korean or Japanese. Exhibit 1005’s Certification of Translation, for example, states: I, Takashi Maeshiro, on behalf of HC Language Solutions, Inc., do solemnly and sincerely declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the attached text represents a translation of Korean Patent No. 10-1041996, that the translation was performed by HC Language Solutions, Inc., and that the translation represents a true, correct, and faithful translation from Korean to English in a form that reflects the intention and meaning of the original text. I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Ex. 1005 at 28 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the Certifications of Translation do not” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,975,750 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,975,750
• Stryker Corporation / Wright Medical Technology, Inc v. Osteomed LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2026 · IPR2021-01452 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 6, 8, 9, 13, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2–5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable over Slater or Slater and Weaver.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, for the same reasons expressed by our previous decision addressing claim 8 of the ’085 patent, and the court’s analysis in Stryker, we conclude that Slater does not anticipate claims 2–5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 of the ’716 patent because Slater deliberately describes a variable angle hole that lacks a single predetermined angle—that is, Slater describes a transfixation screw hole that does not have a central axis defining the trajectory.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “In its Petition, Petitioner contends that Weaver discloses the limitations in claim 6 and that it would have been obvious to add Weaver’s features to Slater’s plate to provide a more secure fixation between the screws and the plate. Pet. 36–39; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 188–196. Specifically, Petitioner contends that configuring Slater’s transfixation screw hole (claim 6) or at least one of Slater’s attachment points (claim 8) as a threaded screw hole to lockably engage the head of a locking screw would have been an obvious design choice “because locking screws ‘provide a high resistance to shear or torsional forces’ and reduce the incidence of screw loosening.” Pet. 39 (quoting Ex. 1009, 1:57–58); Ex. 1009, 1:46–48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 191– 196. Petitioner otherwise relies on its anticipation analysis for claim 1 discussed above. Pet. 36.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,763,716 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,763,716
• Stryker Corporation / Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Osteomed LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2026 · IPR2021-01450 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 6, 8–10, 14, and 17 are unpatentable; claims 2–5, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable, based on anticipation by Slater and obviousness over Slater and Weaver.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Stryker Corp. v. OsteoMed LLC, No. 2023-1925, 2025 WL 2814019 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025) (“Stryker”) (Paper 49),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating and remanding-in-part our Final Written Decision (Paper 46) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding of no anticipation as to independent claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,529,608 B2 (“the ’608 patent,” Ex. 1001), and vacated and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether dependent claims 2–6, 8–10, 12–14, and 17 (the “Remanded Claims”) are similarly unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s challenges relying on the Slater reference. Stryker, slip op. at 14–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We issue this Final Written Decision on Remand pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in an inter partes review involving Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) and OsteoMed LLC (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the entirety of the record in light of the Federal Circuit’s directives in Stryker, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6, 8–10, 14, and 17 are unpatentable. We also conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2–5, 12, and 13 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, for the same reasons expressed by our previous decision addressing claim 8 of the ’085 patent, and the court’s analysis in Stryker, we conclude that Slater does not anticipate claims 2–5, 12, and 13 of the ’608 patent because Slater deliberately describes a variable angle hole that lacks a single predetermined angle—that is, Slater describes a transfixation screw hole that does not have a central axis defining the trajectory.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “limitations in claim 6 and that it would have been obvious to add Weaver’s features to Slater’s plate to provide a more secure fixation between the screws and the plate. Pet. 37–39; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 161–169. Specifically, Petitioner contends that configuring Slater’s transfixation screw hole (claim 6) or at least one of Slater’s attachment points (claim 8) as a threaded screw hole to lockably engage the head of a locking screw would have been an obvious design choice “because locking screws ‘provide a high resistance to shear or torsional forces’ and reduce the incidence of screw loosening.” Pet. 39 (quoting Ex. 1009, 1:57–58); Ex. 1009, 1:46–48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162– 163. Petitioner otherwise relies on its anticipation analysis for claim 1 discussed above. Pet. 37. Patent Owner raised no separate argument regarding the patentability of claims 6 and 8, instead relying solely on its argument that Slater does not anticipate independent claim 1, on which claims 6 and 8 depend. PO Resp. 46; Reply 4 (“Patent Owner does not challenge the combination of Slater and Weaver for claims 6 and 8.”). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the undisputed limitations of claims 6 and 8 and find that Petitioner establishes that the combination of Slater and Weaver discloses all of the limitations of claims 6 and 8, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Slater and Weaver for the reasons provided by Petitioner. We adopt Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to these limitations as our own. See Pet. 37–39.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,608 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,608
• Stryker Corporation / Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Osteomed LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2026 · IPR2021-01451 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 6, 8, 9, and 13 were held unpatentable; claims 2–5, 11, and 12 were not shown unpatentable because Slater lacks the claimed central axis.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “addressing the ’085 patent and by the court’s analysis in Stryker, we conclude that Slater does not anticipate claims 2–5, 11, and 12 of the ’776 patent because Slater deliberately describes a variable angle hole that lacks a single predetermined angle—that is, Slater describes a transfixation screw hole that does not have a central axis defining the trajectory.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “In its Petition, Petitioner contends that Weaver discloses the limitations in claim 6 and that it would have been obvious to add Weaver’s features to Slater’s plate to provide a more secure fixation between the screws and the plate. Pet. 36–39; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–74. Specifically, Petitioner contends that configuring Slater’s transfixation screw hole (claim 6) or at least one of Slater’s attachment points (claim 8) as a threaded screw hole to lockably engage the head of a locking screw would have been an obvious design choice “because locking screws ‘provide a high resistance to shear or torsional forces’ and reduce the incidence of screw loosening.” Pet. 39 (quoting Ex. 1009, 1:57–58); Ex. 1009, 1:46–48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169– 74. Petitioner otherwise relies on its anticipation analysis for claim 1 discussed above. Pet. 36.” slip op. at 17

  • RemandOther

    “Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Stryker Corp. v. OsteoMed LLC, No. 2023-1925, 2025 WL 2814019 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025) (“Stryker”) (Paper 49),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating and remanding-in-part our Final Written Decision (Paper 46, “FWD”) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding of no anticipation as to independent claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent 9,351,776 B2 (“the ’776 patent,” Ex. 1001), and vacated and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether dependent claims 2–6 and 8, 9 and 11–13 (the “Remanded Claims”) are unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s challenges relying on the Slater reference. Stryker, slip op. 14– 15.” slip op. at 2

  Patent outcomesUS 9,351,776 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,351,776
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01030 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20, 22–31, and 33–37 are unpatentable; claims 21 and 32 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the proposed combinations failed to establish motivation to combine or the required airtight seal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the proposals from the parties substantially overlap, such that it remains unclear whether any substantive difference exists. Notably, neither party argues that the minor differences in the proposals lead to a different outcome on any issues in this proceeding. Based on our review of the proposals, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal because it is consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’483 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of the issues addressed in this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9

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

    “hermetically sealed” module does not encompass waterproof modules that are not airtight. First, as Petitioner admits, as a general matter, “[s]omething that is hermetically sealed is sealed so as to be airtight.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269); PO Sur-reply 16. Petitioner later tries to argue that the specification puts a different spin on this meaning, but still acknowledges that “[o]utside the context of the ’483 patent, a hermetic seal is sometimes equated with an airtight seal.” See Pet. Post-hearing 2–3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269). Based on our review of the record, the “ordinary meaning” of “hermetically sealed” means “airtight,” and, as noted above, “airtight” is not the same thing as “waterproof.” Second, the claims support Patent Owner’s position by including dependent claims that separately claim a “hermetically sealed” module (claims 13 and 32) and a “waterproof” module (claims 15 and 34), strongly suggesting that the terms have a different scope to avoid rendering some claims redundant. See Ex. 1001, 11: 65–66, 12:3–4, 12:52–53, 12:55–56. Petitioner argues in its Post-hearing brief that claims requiring waterproof modules are “a narrower species” of hermetic seal, but fails to explain how hermetic, airtight, and waterproof seals would not fall within the scope of both claims using its approach. Pet. Post-hearing Reply 2. Petitioner’s earlier argument in its Reply also seems to cut against this position by asserting that the specification “treats hermitically sealing as conventional and equivalent to waterproofing,” with different dependent claims directed to two allegedly “equivalent” terms making little sense. Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis added). The most natural reading of the claim language suggests that “hermetically sealed” means airtight, and does not encompass modules that are waterproof but not airtight. Third, while the specification does not define “hermetically sealed” and uses “waterproof” and “hermetically sealed” in similar contexts, it does not suggest that “hermetically sealed” does not require an airtight seal consistent with its ordinary meaning. See Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18, 10:47–50). Instead, the specification states that hermetic seals prevent water from contacting electronics, which remains consistent with Patent Owner’s position because airtight hermetic seals are also waterproof. See Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18. The specification also states that “[t]he module preferably houses any of the aforementioned electrical components in a substantially water-proof and wear resistant/moisture resistant environment and is preferably hermetically sealed.” Id. at 10:47–50 (emphasis added). This passage supports Patent Owner’s position by suggesting that the preferable “hermetically sealed” module goes beyond mere water resistance. See PO Sur-reply 16–17. slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Petitioner’s Anticipation Arguments and Evidence Petitioner argues that Howell-596 discloses every limitation of claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18, and points to specific portions of Howell-596 and expert testimony to support its arguments. See Pet. 10–20 (citing Ex. 1002; Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the evidence and arguments of record and find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations in claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are disclosed by Howell-596 for the reasons set forth in the Petition, which we adopt as our own. See id.11 Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Howell-596 anticipates claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on these undisputed points and the parties’ arguments, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have been motivated to locate Howell-596’s module housing 1700, which contains its UV detection system 1500, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never squarely addresses the fact that placing Howell-596’s UV detection system behind a user’s ear would negatively impact its performance. Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 17–22. As a result, even if we accept Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the various advantages when placing electronics behind a user’s ear, it fails to establish a motivation to combine that requires placing Howell-596’s module housing 1700, and therefore its UV detection system, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never acknowledges the readily apparent disadvantages of placing a UV detection system behind the ear, where it may not work at all. See Pet. 31–33. Nor does Petitioner argue that, in its combination, adjustments would be made to ensure accurate operation of Howell-596’s UV detection system. See id. Similarly, Petitioner notes that both Howell-596 and Howell-833 disclose UV sensors behind the ear of a user, but those teachings do not establish that placing Howell-596’s module behind the ear would ensure proper operation of its UV detection system housed within that module. See Pet. Reply 17–22. Instead, even though Howell-596 discloses a sensor behind the ear of a user, it maintains the UV detection system in a module toward the front of the temple, away from the ear. See id. at 18–19; PO Surreply 21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 205 (describing UV detection system 2102), Fig. 21 (showing UV detection system 2102 toward the front of the temple). Moreover, Petitioner’s reliance on the sensor placed behind the ear of the user in Howell-596 lacks weight because that sensor merely indicates that the device “is being worn by a user,” which serves a very different purpose than Howell-596’s UV detection system, which seeks to monitor a user’s exposure to UV radiation, a central purpose of Howell-596’s eyewear. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 205, code (57). Howell-833 also employs a UV sensor behind the ear, but Petitioner does not establish that it operates any differently than the “being worn” sensor in Howell-596, and therefore does not establish that Howell-596’s UV detection system would still work for its intended purposes in Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,708,483 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,708,483
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01070 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 12–19 are unpatentable; claims 10 and 11 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted grounds failed to establish unpatentability for those claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties do not identify, and we do not discern, any material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. Based on the record currently before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The parties agree that “constrain” means to retain the module in a fixed position. Patent Owner further interprets “constrain” not to allow minor movement. This interpretation is consistent with the ’174 patent, which states, In some embodiments, the first electrical conductor may be configured to constrain or substantially constrain the electronics module. As used in this context, “constrain” may refer to when the first electrical conductor is configured to provide support (i.e. a restraining force) for the electronics module to retain the module in a fixed position within the temple. That is, the first electrical conductor may be configured to hold the electronics module in place. . . . The term “substantially constrain” is used in this context to account for some minor movement of the electronics module within the temple, but the conductor may generally hold the electronics module within the temple in place (such that it remains in an operative position). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:3 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’174 patent distinguishes between an electrical conductor configure to “constrain” an electronics module and an electrical conductor configured to “substantially constrain” an electronics module, with the latter allowing for “some minor movement of the electronics module.” We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation of “constrain” as used in claim 1 to mean the first and second electrical conductors are configured to provide a restraining force that retains the module in a fixed position without allowing for minor movement of the electronics module.7 This interpretation also is consistent with Petitioner’s interpretation, which includes retaining the module in a fixed position within the temple. See Pet. 20.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “therefore, are unavailing. As correctly noted by Petitioner, Brunton discloses that “the [hearing aid] units may be provided with any suitable number of contact pins and the sockets provided with a corresponding number of tubular contacts that are positioned to receive the pins and in which the pins are frictionally retained.” Ex. 1003, 3:61–65 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Feland, testifies, Frictionally retaining the hearing aid unit’s pins in the cavity means that the socket contacts couple the hearing aid unit to the temple and constrain the hearing aid unit. Brunton’s socket contacts (corresponding to the claimed first and second electrical conductors) accordingly are configured to couple the hearing aid unit (corresponding to the claimed electronics module) to the temple to constrain the hearing aid unit. Ex. 1002 ¶ 64. We credit this testimony of Dr. Feland, which is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of a friction-fit connection. We give less credit to the testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Oliver. Dr. Oliver testifies that “Brunton describes a cover plate that physically secures the sockets.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:71–4:1). However, this assertion is contradicted by the very disclosure Dr. Oliver quotes in his declaration, which explains that the material of the temple retains the sockets in place: “The sockets for the transistor and unit, such as the sockets 19 and 20, may be frictionally held in the cavity or may be embedded in the material of the temple, as may be desired.” Ex. 1003, 3:71–74 (emphases added); see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (quoting same). Brunton does disclose a cover plate to cover the cavity, but Brunton does not disclose or suggest that the cover plate contacts or otherwise influences the hearing aid: “In the design shown, the temple is provided with a cover plate 31 that is secured in position over the unit 77 and the transistor 29 with screws 32.” Ex. 1003, 3:74–4:1; see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (quoting same).” slip op. at 27

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

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner has set forth adequate reasoning to combine the teachings of Eichelberger and Howell-596. Howell-596 teaches electronic circuitry having UV radiation monitoring capability that can be used within eyewear. Ex. 1015, code (57). Howell-596 discloses that the UV detection system can be activated by a switch, which can be a capacitive touch switch. Id. ¶¶ 88, 191; Ex. 1019, 172. As discussed above, Eichelberger teaches a capacitive touch switch with electronic components disposed thereon. Ex. at 3:6–14, 3:43–50. We are persuaded that using Eichelberger’s capacitive touch switch in place of Howell-596’s would have been obvious. See Pet. 83–84; Ex. 1002 ¶ 221. e. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 15 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Howell-596 and Eichelberger.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,801,174 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,801,174

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.