• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00611 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated Douglas–Mark and Hamilton-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that experience could substitute for a degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3; PO Resp. 10. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar. For this decision, as in the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level, which is supported by credible testimonial evidence and is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’774 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:16–52. Our decision would be the same, however, if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner argues that we need to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 2–3; PO Resp. 10. However, the parties contest two material claim-construction issues which we address below. To the extent that the parties’ positions depend on interpreting other claim language in a particular way, we discuss the relevant claim language below in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that limitation 1.2 must be performed before limitations 1.3 or 1.4. See Ex. 1001, 35:21–24. See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” (citing Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The evidence suggests that a “target printer” is any printer that is ultimately selected for fabricating the object, and such a printer could send its configuration information either before or after that determination is made in limitation 1.2. This interpretation does not render the word “target” meaningless. At some point, a printer must be determined to be the target printer, which is the one intended to ultimately fabricate the three-dimensional object. But the target printer still exists, and is capable of being queried, before that determination is made. We find the examples in the ’774 patent pertinent to this question. The ’774 patent states that “the target printer may include more than one printer.” Ex. 1001, 18:66–67. In discussing the step of “query target printer for properties 306” (Fig. 3A), the ’774 patent states that “[i]n one aspect, numerous queries are sent to numerous printers, e.g., for use in selecting one or more of the printers as the target printer.” Id. at 19:8–10. Alternatively, “the query is sent to a printer that is not necessarily the target printer as described herein, e.g., when the query or information received from a response to the query is used for the selection of the target printer.” Id. at 19:11–14. Importantly, the second embodiment states that the queried printer “is not necessarily the target printer,” suggesting that the queried printer could be the target printer even before it is determined to be such. Id. at 19:11–12 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence of record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “target printer” can be determined after the query recited in limitation 1.3 or the reception of configuration information recited in limitation 1.4. Thus, the evidence does not impose an ordering between limitations 1.2 and 1.3 or between limitations 1.2 and 1.4. The evidence also does not support Patent Owner’s argument that the two reverse-order examples in the ’774 patent are unclaimed embodiments.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree that Petitioner’s arguments are based on impermissible hindsight, because they are based on the disclosures in Douglas and Mark, and Petitioner has articulated a persuasive reason to combine those references without referring to the ’774 patent itself, as we discuss below. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (an obvious rationale is not improper hindsight if it “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,886,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,886,774
• Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00680 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103 over Gregorio, Ramsay, Tierling, Rossi, and Aldrich; claim 2 is also unpatentable over Gregorio, Ramsay, Wakuda, Rossi, and Aldrich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree. Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” See PO Resp. 4. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’337 patent specification.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In particular, the parties agree that the “driving component” and “control component” requirements of independent claim 2 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 2–6; PO Resp. 7. Construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function and 2) identifying in the specification the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionTerm construed board ownMixed

    “supply of power from the power supply to . . . cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency . . . specified by one or more stored values” to portions of steps 706 and 708 of the flow diagram algorithm of Figure 7A, as described above. Thus, the control component requires a microprocessor and memory with algorithmic structure including a timing algorithm or similar coding for creating a control output signal that flips to control the direction of current flow through a coil (e.g., coil 514, Fig. 5, coil 626, Fig. 6), where the coil is structure that corresponds to the recited “driving component,” as noted above.10 We adopt the District Court’s conclusion in the Apple litigation that the “control component” structure itself does not require an H-bridge switch, but only requires that the processor generates the “d” inputs configured to operate a switch or other circuit; and further that the structure does not require does not require computing initial default values as specified in step 702 of Figure 7A (i.e., values not specified by a user). Ex. 3001, 30–33, 35. This is in accord with settled law that limits the structure to that necessary to 10 “Rather than using a formal timer mechanism, certain implementations may simply employ counted loops or other simple programming techniques for periodically carrying out tasks.” Ex. 1001, 7:7–10. perform the claimed function. 11 By the same token, we modify the District Court’s construction to the extent it would require, based on such steps as 706, 710, and 716, a specific order of the steps of generating the “p” and “d” values. The claims only require the control component to control the power supply to cause oscillation at a specified frequency and amplitude, but do not require the frequency value to be generated before the amplitude value, or vice versa.” slip op. at 17

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

    “The record, including testimony by Dr. Hannaford (Ex. 1003; Ex. 1049), supports Petitioner’s rationale, and shows that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Gregorio, Ramsay, and Wakuda in the manner proposed. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s showing for combining these references with any particularity. See generally PO Resp. We discuss below Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s showing as to limitation 2.f based on the combination of Gregorio and Ramsay is conclusory.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,860,337 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,860,337
• Apple Inc. v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00255 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 4, and 6–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Bhattacharya and Zeng, and over Bhattacharya, Zeng, and Spain; claims 1, 3, and 11 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Second, the key differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is that Patent Owner asserts “experience in wireless telecommunications and cellular technology is necessary,” as well as a background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system technology with two years of industry experience working in the same, would be required. PO Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 46); see also id. 44– 45. The ’104 patent is directed to locating a wireless mobile device in a geographic region. Ex. 1001, 1:13–20; PO Resp. 44. Bhattacharya is 9 Patent Owner refers to IPR2024-01209, but the correct citation is IPR2023- 01209. See PO Resp. 22. 1005, code (57), ¶¶ 1, 13; PO Resp. 44. Zeng is directed to handoff from one cell to another in a wireless cellular communication system to achieve continuous service. Ex. 1006, 1; PO Resp. 44. Spain is directed to a method for locating the concentration of mobile radio traffic in a coverage area. Ex. 1007, code (54), ¶¶ 1, 11; PO Resp. 44. We find that there is support in the ’104 patent and prior art consistent with Patent Owner’s assertion that the qualifications of a person of skill in the art would include knowledge of radio navigation and mobile communications technology. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “In this case, Patent Owner attempts to make much of Dr. Sundaresan’s statement that he had been informed of the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 41–43. Dr. Sundaresan’s testimony, however, set forth this understanding of the requisite level of skill in the art (Ex. 1003 ¶ 8). In his supplemental declaration, Dr. Sundaresan further testifies that: I agreed with this POSITA definition when preparing the Declaration, and I continue to hold the opinion that the POSITA definition is both correct and appropriate based on the disclosures of the ’104 patent and the prior art analyzed in the Declaration. Ex. 1055 ¶ 17. Dr. Sundaresan further testifies that “[i]f I did not agree with the POSITA definition, then it would not have been included in paragraph 8 of the Declaration.” Id. ¶ 18. Dr. Sundaresan’s inclusion of the definition of the level of ordinary skill in his original declaration indicates that he agrees with the definition, as confirmed by his cited subsequent testimony. We note that, even with Patent Owner’s arguments, the record is clear that Patent Owner was on notice of Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill at the time of the Petition. Pet. 7; cf. Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (holding that Petitioner is not required to anticipate all arguments in its Petition and allowing consideration of reply where patent owner had sufficient notice of petitioner’s position and adequate opportunity to respond).” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner adequately establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to reach the Bhattacharya-Zeng combination with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 44

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

    “explained below, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s additional requirement of evaluating the calibration data to determine the boundaries of the area represented by a grid point should not be included in the construction of either “grid point” or “non-uniform grid point.” Instead, based on the full record, we discern no reason to alter our prior construction of “grid point” as “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area” and maintain that construction for this Final Written Decision. The construction of “grid point” we adopt is supported by the Specification of the ’104 patent. Namely, the ’104 patent discloses that “[i]n general, a non-uniform grid point (NUG) may represent the signal characteristics and/or calibration data over a given region,” and “NUGs represent an area of collected calibration data.”18 Ex. 1001, 3:50–60. The district court identified the second quoted passage, which is identically recited in the ’104 patent (see Ex. 2018, 3:56–60) as “provid[ing] a clear indication of the meaning of ‘grid point.’” Ex. 2012, 19 (emphasis added). We agree with the district court’s analysis. Although the ’104 patent does not explain how a generic “grid point” might differ from the described “nonuniform grid point,” we do not find this distinction pertinent to construing “grid point” in this case because neither party raises this issue. Also, based on the claim wording “non-uniform grid point,” a “non-uniform grid point” is a type of grid point. See Pet. Reply 3 (explaining why that plain meaning supports Petitioner’s proposed construction). Furthermore, the district court construed “grid point” only, not “non-uniform grid point.” Ex. 2012, 18–20.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,561,104 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,561,104
• Lam Research Corp. v. Inpria Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2025 · IPR2024-00033 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’888 Publication; Patent Owner’s motion to add substitute claims 13–23 is granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “priority issue are based on the cited disclosures of the ’867 application discussed above. Ex. 2009 ¶ 29. For the reasons discussed above, we do not view the cited disclosures as sufficiently supporting Dr. Banerjee’s conclusion that the ’867 application provides support for claim 1’s average thickness range (id.) and, therefore, give this testimony little weight. Stated somewhat differently, Dr. Banerjee’s advances an opinion (really a legal one) that is not supported by the facts and not in line with the caselaw discussed in this section (such as RAI).” slip op. at 26

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “priority issue are based on the cited disclosures of the ’867 application discussed above. Ex. 2009 ¶ 29. For the reasons discussed above, we do not view the cited disclosures as sufficiently supporting Dr. Banerjee’s conclusion that the ’867 application provides support for claim 1’s average thickness range (id.) and, therefore, give this testimony little weight. Stated somewhat differently, Dr. Banerjee’s advances an opinion (really a legal one) that is not supported by the facts and not in line with the caselaw discussed in this section (such as RAI).” slip op. at 26

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

    “d) Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a” slip op. at 30

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “For these reasons, Patent Owner has met its burden to show by a” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,823,564 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,823,564
• Spectrum Solutions, L.L.C. v. Dna Genotek Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2022-01347 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–8, 11, and 12 are unpatentable as obvious over each of four grounds: Plante and Cho, with or without Maples, and Plante and Patterson, with or without Maples.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(POSITA or POSA) “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience in the medical device industry, including experience with containers and valves used in disposable medical devices.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49). Petitioner further asserts that such a person would have collaborated with a team member with training and experience in the chemical/biological aspects of the invention, having a Ph.D. in microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, or related discipline and “at least two years of post-graduate experience in the area of biological sample preservation and nucleic acid extraction, preservation, and analysis.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner does not dispute using Petitioner’s proposed definition. PO Resp. 6.8 We apply Petitioner’s proposed definition because it is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’646 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings on ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 162 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Id. (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The court in Catalina noted that although no litmus test exists for determining whether to treat a preamble as a limitation, several “guideposts” have emerged from the case law in this area. Id. In particular, guideposts tending to show that the preamble is a claim limitation include: Jepson claiming, dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis, when the preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body, and when the preamble recites additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification. Id. On the other hand, the preamble might not constitute a claim limitation when the claim body describes such a structurally complete invention that deleting the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention. Id. at 809. Also, “preambles describing the use of an invention generally do not limit claims because the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of the structure.” Id.” slip op. at 13

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

    “the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Additionally, ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable are to be construed to mean exactly what they say–– absent, of course, any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The abstract of the ’646 patent describes isolating and preserving cells from bodily fluids “for cellular analysis” and “genomic studies.” Ex. 1001, code (57). In the field of the disclosure portion of the ’646 patent, cells isolated from bodily fluids are preserved “for studies in any of: functional genomic and epigenetic studies, and biomarker discovery.” Id. at 1:25–29. In the background section, the ’646 patent describes the interest in “large-scale epigenetic research” for the purpose of “understanding the mechanisms of gene-environment interactions” suggesting that “epigenetic mechanisms may provide a molecular memory of environmental experiences.” Id. at 1:60–67. The background section further describes the challenges of collecting bodily fluids, such as saliva, is that it is a digestive fluid that can be rich in proteases and that existing solutions used to stabilize cells from blood, which is a transporter fluid, “will not protect cells from proteases found in some bodily fluids, such as saliva.” Id. at 3:24–36, 4:43–47. The detailed description section of the ’646 patent discloses “a solution for preserving cells in one or more bodily fluids, such as saliva and urine” that “may be beneficial for further separation into cell types and downstream molecular analysis” and “allows for storage of cells in the bodily fluid to retain their antigenicity and cellular architecture.” Id. at 16:9–15. The Specification describes some embodiments of solutions for preserving cells in one or more bodily fluids where the solutions contain a chemical fixing agent, a protease inhibitor, an antimicrobial agent, serum proteins, and are buffered to preferred pH ranges. Id. at 16:15–22. Thus, the plain meaning of “preserving a biological sample,” consistent with the ’646 patent disclosure focused on maintaining the architecture of cells contained in a bodily fluid that may include digestive proteases for further study downstream, is “preserving the integrity of a cell contained in a bodily fluid sample.”” slip op. at 15

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

    “We agree that it is not necessary for us to construe these claim terms because neither party asserts that they are material to the asserted grounds in the Petition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,002,646 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,002,646
• Infineon Technologies AG v. Feinics Amatech TeorantaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00417 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–12, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda-322.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The Specification of the ’250 patent describes its technical field as relating to a smart card that may comprise an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip with antenna components for operating in contactless modes. Ex. 1001, 1:37–54. The Specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See, e.g., id. at 3:14–39. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 2005, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill should be narrowly confined to developing antenna for RFID devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Pet. 7.5” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, for several reasons. Patent Owner first argues that Dr. van der Weide lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a person having ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 27–38 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71). According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Moreover, Petitioner presents evidence that Dr. Van der Weide’s experience exceeds even Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 22–23 (citations omitted). Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7; Ex. 1004 (van der Weide curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededTerm construed board ownMixed

    “appears in independent claims 1 and 18) should be construed as “a component in a booster antenna for coupling with a module antenna connected to an integrated circuit.” PO Resp. 15–16. We determine that it is unnecessary to construe this claim term for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (“[W]e need only construe 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))). As we explain herein, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Takeda-322 renders the recited “coupler coil” obvious even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Section III(G)(2)(b), infra.” slip op. at 13

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

    “to the extent Takeda-322 does not expressly teach a single wire implementation, such an implementation would have been obvious because it was a known, conventional, technique and because it would lead to obvious and predictable results while avoiding drawbacks of multiple wires. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63; Ex. 1012, 3:54–60, 4:26–36, 5:35– 60 (Ayala suggesting use of single wire)). Petitioner further argues, with supporting evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation. Id. The preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had both reason and a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation, and Patent Owner does not dispute the argument. We, thus, determine that a single-wire embodiment of Takeda-322 would have been obvious.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,033,250 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,033,250
• Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Quantificare S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2023 · IPR2021-01519 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9–12, 15, 16, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller, with Peng added for claims 21–23.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision to Institute, we declined to construe this term as a means plus function term under 35 U.S.C § 112(f). Dec. to Inst. 9–12. Although Petitioner disagrees and asserts that the term “device for stereophotogrammetry” should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Petitioner presents no arguments other than those in the Petition that we addressed in the Decision to Institute. Reply 7–8. Petitioner further acknowledges that “an express construction may not be necessary for the Board to evaluate patentability.” Id. at 8. For the reasons discussed in the Decision to Institute, we do not construe device for stereophotogrammetry configured for an acquisition of two views according to two different angles as a means plus function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Our Decision to Institute applied the plain and ordinary meaning to this term without any express construction to the remaining language of this limitation, including “configured for an acquisition of two views according to two different angles.” Dec. to Inst. 9–11. In the context of the challenged claims, the parties dispute the implications of the plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having considered the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history, and the extrinsic evidence, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the claim language does not mean that the sub-optics are angled, but instead means that they each view a subject from different angles.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “We also agree with Petitioner that “the preamble here is not limiting, because the body of the claim provides a complete description of the device.” Reply 6–7 (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The preamble for claim 1 recites “[a] device for stereophotogrammetry,” but “[g]enerally, the preamble does not limit the claims.” Ex. 1022, 11:42; Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Regardless, as Petitioner notes, no “canon of claim construction is absolute in its application and [] some surplusage may exist in some claims.” Reply 7 (alteration in original) (quoting Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 527 F.3d 1300, 1312 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (acknowledging that proper construction of “remote interface” arguably “render[s] the term ‘public’ in [a dependent claim] surplusage”)).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Treuilett discloses the actual focal length of their lenses, but Dr. Otto states that a person of ordinary skill would understand such devices may be used with any lens suitable to the subject. Pet. 50. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Otto’s testimony provides sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the proposition that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to select the requisite lenses to achieve the results recited in claim 11. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teaching of Plassmann, Treuilitt, and Staller and that their combined teachings would have disclosed or suggested the subject matter of claim 11 to a person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 10,681,334 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,681,334
• Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Quantificare S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01518 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8–12, 15, 16, and 20–23 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations of Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller, with Kingslake or Peng as applicable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. Rather, we conclude that the claim language does not mean that the sub-optics’ optical axes are angled, but instead means that the sub-optics each view a subject from a different angle, as Petitioner argues. Ex. 1020, 11:43–45; Pet. Reply 7. Specifically, this limitation recites that the two sub-optics are “configured for a simultaneous acquisition of two views according to two different angles.” Ex. 1020, 11:43–45. Notably, “according to two different angles” directly follows “two views,” rather than directly following “configured.” Id. And “view” means “[a] scene or an arrangement of subject material for a photograph,” according to a technical dictionary provided by Patent Owner. Ex. 2014,7 210 (defining “view”). In other words, the term “view” itself refers to viewed subject material—a target subject.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not substantively address the differences in their proposed definitions for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply. 8; PO Resp. 23; see generally PO Sur-reply. Moreover, the parties agree that which definition we adopt does not substantively impact our analysis of the parties’ arguments concerning unpatentability. Tr. 29:19–30:9, 75:20–25. Because Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’253 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). In addition, we do not find sufficient support in the record for requiring one of ordinary skill in the art to have had a master’s degree. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 20 (requiring a master’s degree), with Ex. 2013 ¶ 31 (testifying why a master’s degree was unnecessary). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree. Patent Owner does not provide an analysis demonstrating that its Infinity product is coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims. Rather, Patent Owner cites to the following testimony of Dr. van der Weide: “I have reviewed the LifeViz Infinity device and conclude that it embodies the invention of the [’]253 Patent. More specifically, the Infinity possesses all the features listed in claim 1 of the patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 213). Simply put, Patent Owner fails to provide any analysis whatsoever. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, Patent Owner’s reliance on WBIP is misplaced. In that case, “WBIP presented evidence that specific products . . . [we]re embodiments of the invention as claimed in the asserted claims,” and that provided a basis for finding a presumption of nexus. WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1329–31. Such is not the case here. In sum, Patent Owner does not provide the required analysis demonstrating that Infinity is coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims. PO Resp. 55; Lectrosonics, Paper 33 at 33. We, therefore, find that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Ex. 1020, 11:46–57. We agree with Petitioner and find that the combination of Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller teaches this limitation. First, we agree with Petitioner and find that Plassmann teaches a positioning system that uses a pair of light beamers to signal when a target subject is reaching a predefined distance position to the camera. See Ex. 1007, Fig. 1A (light beamers 6a, 6b); Pet. 33. Plassmann teaches that light beams converge at a predefined distance “corresponding to the distance in which the camera lens is focussed.” Ex. 1007, 12:7–13. More specifically, Plassmann states the following: The apparatus is also provided with two low-powered light emitting diodes (LEDs) 6a, 6b, each provided with a focussing lens to produce a beam of light and being arranged so that the beams converge and meet at a point a fixed and desired distance from the apparatus, this distance corresponding to the distance at which the camera lens is focussed. Id.; Pet. 34. Accordingly, we find that Plassmann teaches the limitation, save for having a second predefined distance position—if there are two different distance positions, one necessarily is closer to the camera body and the other one farther. Ex. 1007, 12:7–13, Fig. 1A. Second, we agree with Petitioner and find that Staller teaches a positioning system having more than one predefined imaging distance position. Pet. 38. More specifically, we find that Staller teaches a strobe diffuser attachment for a camera, which includes a “distance measurement device [that] may be adapted to selectively produce one of a plurality of pairs of light beams which intersect at different repeatable distances from the diffuser body.” Ex. 1006, code (57), 2:29–32, 5:13–15; see also id. at 5:56– 6:2 (“[T]wo pairs of light beam emitters . . . may be used to provide three or four separate pairs of intersecting bea[m]s and three or four corresponding repeatable distances for diffuser 10.”); Pet. 38. In other words, Staller teaches having at least two distinct predefined distance positions for the camera. Ex. 1006, code (57), 2:29–32, 5:13–15, 5:56–6:2. We also agree with Petitioner and find that Staller teaches that its “distance indicator improves the usefulness of close range photography by providing a repeatable scale to photographs[, which] . . . improves the usefulness of close ranges photographs for medical and other organic growth measurement applications.” Ex. 1006, 6:10–15; Pet. 38. In addition, we agree with Petitioner and find that Plassmann teaches that “[s]tereoscopic imaging has been known for many years,” and “ha[s] been used to measure the shape of wounds and the like which are otherwise difficult to measure by conventional techniques.” Ex. 1007, 1:6–15; Pet. 35. We also agree with Petitioner and find that it was known in the art before the ’253 patent to use a camera having multiple predefined distances for imaging a subject in connection with wound or lesion treatment. See Ex. 1017,17 579; Ex. 1011,18 164, Fig. 2, Table 2; Ex. 1008,19 481.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 10,165,253 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,165,253
• Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Quantificare S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01511 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller; claims 9–11 are unpatentable as obvious over those references and Peng.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We find this argument unavailing. Rather, we agree with Petitioner and determine that the claim language does not mean that the sub-optics are angled but instead means that they each view a subject from different angles. Ex. 1020, 11:43–45; Pet. Reply 7. Specifically, this limitation recites that the two sub-optics are “configured for a simultaneous acquisition of two views according to two different angles.” Ex. 1020, 11:43–45. Notably, “according to two different angles” directly follows “two views,” rather than directly following “configured.” Id. And “view” means “[a] scene or an arrangement of subject material for a photograph,” according to a technical dictionary provided by Patent Owner. Ex. 2014,6 210 (defining “view”). In other words, the term “view” itself refers to viewed subject material—a target subject.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not substantively address the differences in their proposed definitions for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 15; PO Resp. 23; see generally Reply; PO Sur-reply. Moreover, the parties agree that which definition we adopt does not substantively impact our analysis of the parties’ arguments concerning unpatentability. Tr. 29:19–30:9, 75:20–25. Because Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’253 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). In addition, we do not find support in the record for requiring one of ordinary skill in the art to have had a master’s degree. Pet. 15; Ex. 2013 ¶ 31 (testifying why a master’s degree was unnecessary). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Otto rely on Treuillet for what the Treuillet reference teaches to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. Treuillet’s suggestions to a person having ordinary skill in the art remain relevant even if Treuillet were factually incorrect in some respects. Second, even if considered hearsay, Dr. Otto properly relied on Treuillet. Opp. Mot. Excl. 4–7. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert may rely on facts and data that “need not be admissible,” including hearsay (double or otherwise). Here, the evidence supports that Treuillet was published in an independent, respected, and peer-reviewed IEEE journal. Id. at 5–6 (citing evidence regarding reliability of the IEEE journal). In addition, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments concerning “Reference 45.”5 Mot. Excl. 3–5; Reply Mot. Excl. 1–5. Rather, we find that it is appropriate for an expert also to rely on the sourcing in article published in such an IEEE journal. Thus, Treuillet is the kind of evidence we would expect an expert witness or person having ordinary skill in the art to rely upon, and Dr. Otto was entirely reasonable on relying on Treuillet in forming his opinions Third, even if Treuillet were inconsistent with other evidence, such as Plassmann, this issue would go to the credibility of Dr. Otto’s testimony and the weight given to it in deciding ultimate issues of fact rather than admissibility in the first instance. For the reasons above, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to exclude with respect to Dr. Otto’s testimony.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner persuasively argues that Treuillet teaches that the Plassmann MAVIS II device may take acceptable wound photographs from 65 centimeters to 95 centimeters (within its “depth of field”). Pet. 36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 113; Ex. 1016, 755. A person of skill in the art would have understood that acceptable medical wound photographs would have to be adequately focused and that Treuillet, therefore, suggests a depth of field from 65 centimeters to 95 centimeters for the Plassmann device. Ex. 1003 ¶ 113 (explaining that a person of skill in the art would understand that Plassmann has an expanded depth of field because it can “accurately image a subject at multiple positions”). Petitioner then relies on Staller as teaching multiple light beamers to define more than one imaging position within a depth of field. Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1006, Fig. 4, 2:29–34, 5:56–6:2. Staller teaches plurality of pairs of light beams that “intersect at a different repeatable distance from the diffuser body.” Pet. 23; Ex. 1006, code (57), 2:29–32, 5:13–15; see also id. at 5:56– 6:2 (“[T]wo pairs of light beam emitters . . . may be used to provide three or four separate pairs of intersecting bea[m]s and three or four corresponding repeatable distances for diffuser 10.”). In other words, Staller teaches having at least two distinct predefined distance positions for the camera. Ex. 1006, code (57), 2:29–32, 5:13–15, 5:56–6:2. The advantage of the plurality of pairs of light beams is taught by Staller: repeatability. Ex. 1006, 6:10–15 (referring a concern for “repeatable scale” to “improve[] the usefulness of close range photographs for medical” applications). Petitioner persuasively argues that a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to predefine two distances from a device in order to provide for varying levels of magnification. Pet. 45–46. Petitioner persuasively explains that a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references’ teachings. Id. at 46–47.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 10,070,119 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,070,119
• Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2022 · IPR2021-00406 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over the ’212 patent, Voswinckel JESC, and Voswinckel JAHA; the Board did not reach the other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner is permitted a “limited opportunit[y]” to present new evidence in or with its Reply, as long as that new evidence is “responsive to the prior briefing” and does not constitute “changing theories after filing [the] petition.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29, at 14–15 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Here, both of the arguments that Patent Owner alleges are new—the argument that Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA were presented publicly and the argument that these references were cited in other publicly available references—respond to Patent Owner’s argument in the Patent Owner Response that Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA were not publicly accessible. PO Resp. 11–18. The argument that Voswinckel JESC was publicly presented is not a change in theory from the Petition, because Petitioner presented this argument in the Petition. Pet. 22. As to both Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA, Petitioner’s Reply evidence showing citation to the references in other publicly accessible documents is merely additional evidence supporting Petitioner’s original theory that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have located the references. Accordingly, we find that the following arguments made by Petitioner are not untimely: (1) that Voswinckel JESC was presented publicly, (2) that Voswinckel JESC was referenced in a publicly accessible document, and (3) that Voswinckel JAHA was referenced in a publicly accessible document.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA were publicly accessible. “[T]he presence of a ‘research aid’ can . . . establish public accessibility” of a reference if that research aid “provide[s] a skilled artisan with a sufficiently definite roadmap leading to” the reference by “provid[ing] enough details [to] determine that an interested party is reasonably certain to arrive at the destination: the potentially invalidating reference.” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner directs us to research aids for finding both Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA: a “June 2005 Ghofrani article in the journal Herz” for the former, and “a March 2005 article authored by Roxana Sulica et al. in the Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy” for the latter. Reply 3, 7 (citing Ex. 1010, 298, 301; Ex. 1104, 359). The Ghofrani article cites Voswinckel JESC as providing a solution to patients experiencing “pain at the injection site” by replacing injected treprostinil for “pulmonary arterial hypertension” with “inhaled treprostinil.” Ex. 1010, 298 (citing reference 6), 301 (defining reference 6 as Voswinckel JESC). The Ghofrani article also discusses the study reported in Voswinckel JESC, summarizing both the “major reduction in pulmonary selective pressure and resistance” and the lack of “adverse effects” described in Voswinckel JESC. Id. The Sulica article cites to Voswinckel JAHA, explaining that the reference reports that “inhaled treprostinil demonstrated substantial pulmonary vasodilatory efficacy in acute administration, as well as symptomatic and functional benefit in chronic use in a small number of PAH patients.” Ex. 1104, 351, 359. Thus, both the Ghofrani article and the Sulica article provide roadmaps directing a person of ordinary skill in the art looking for successful studies discussing the use of inhaled treprostinil in pulmonary arterial hypertension straight to Voswinckel JESC or Voswinckel JAHA. Because these articles provide these roadmaps, they are “research aid[s]” that “establish [the] public accessibility” of Voswinckel JESC and Voswinckel JAHA. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1350.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. Patent Owner is correct that Voswinckel JESC notes that side effects could occur more frequently at higher doses than at lower doses. Ex. 1007, 7. But there is considerable evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have avoided increasing Voswinckel JESC’s dose due to the side effects reported in Voswinckel JESC. First, Dr. Hill testifies that “[p]otential side effects are always weighed against potential clinical benefit, and pulmonary arterial hypertension is a serious, life-threatening disease where physicians and patients are more willing to tolerate side effects . . . to obtain clinical benefit.” Ex. 1106 ¶ 74. Second, Dr. Waxman testifies that “[u]sually the headache goes away” and “there are things that can be done to help ameliorate the cough so in general we are able to get over that issue.” Ex. 1108, 101:19–102:10. Together with Voswinckel JESC’s description of potential side effects as “mild and transient,” this evidence supports a finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been deterred from pursuing the course that is supported by the evidence to which Petitioner directs us. With respect to reasonable expectation of success, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the ’212 patent, Voswinckel JESC, and Voswinckel JAHA because Voswinckel JAHA teaches that “[t]olerability is excellent” for its short-duration, high-concentration treprostinil inhalation therapy. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1008, 3). Other than the argument discussed above about side effects reported in Voswinckel JESC, Patent Owner does not raise any timely counter to this argument.8 PO Resp. 10–40. The record supports Petitioner’s argument. Ex. 1008, 3. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of the ’212 patent, Voswinckel JESC, and Voswinckel JAHA and that they reasonably would have expected to succeed in doing so.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsDecided for petitioner

    “[U]nexpected results must establish . . . a difference between the results obtained and those of the closest prior art.” Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva Pharms. USA, 752 F.3d 967, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Petitioner argues that the prior art over which Patent Owner argues the challenged claims showed unexpected results is not the closest prior art. Reply 24. We agree. As noted above, Patent Owner argues that the challenged claims show unexpected results over inhaled iloprost, intravenous epoprostenol, and intravenous treprostinil. PO Resp. 55–57. But the challenged claims recite inhaled treprostinil, and, as discussed above, inhaled treprostinil is taught by each of the ’212 patent, Voswinckel JESC, and Voswinckel JAHA. Ex. 1001, 18:22–44; Ex. 1006, code (57); Ex. 1007, 7; Ex. 1008, 3; Ex. 1035, 582. Patent Owner does not even allege that the results of the challenged claims are unexpected over these references.9 Accordingly, we find that the evidence of record does not establish that the challenged claims produced a result that was unexpected over the closest prior art. slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,716,793 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,716,793

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.