- Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Altria Client Services LLC v. Yiwu Jingangke Trading Co., Ltd.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · PGR2026-00035 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner for abandoning the contest and canceled the sole challenged claim.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Pursuant to our rules, “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [a]bandonment of the contest.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Our prior order warned that a failure to respond would be construed as an abandonment of the contest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), and that entry of judgment adverse to Patent Owner and cancellation of the challenged claim may follow. Show Cause Order, 2. Because Patent Owner did not respond by the September 15, 2026, deadline and has not entered an appearance in this proceeding, we determine that Patent Owner has abandoned the contest. Under these circumstances, we enter judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancel the challenged design claim.” slip op. at 2
None - CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbHNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · PGR2021-00054 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Remand
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable because Sample C was not proven publicly available as prior art, and the original decision found the remaining grounds insufficient.
RulingsRemand decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s evidence in Kuntz (Ex. 1026), the Annual Report (Ex. 1028), Masuko (Ex. 1029), and Pfaff (Ex. 1034) is insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public before the effective filing date of the ’861 patent. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26. Kuntz, the Annual Report, Masuko, and Pfaff may support a finding that the Xirallic® line of products was available to the public, but these documents do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public. We also agree with Patent Owner that the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010), Certificates of Analysis (Exs. 1011–1017), and Material Safety Data Sheet (Ex. 1025) are insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26–27. Regardless of how the Technical Data Sheets were used in the Opposition against the European counterpart of the ’861 patent (Exs. 1040, 1041) and during the prosecution of the application from which the ’861 patent issued (Ex. 1003, 102–104), the Technical Data Sheets do not refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Moreover, as noted by Patent Owner, the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010) indicate that they are “preliminary” and Petitioner has not provided any evidence that the Technical Data Sheets were ever issued to the public, as opposed to just issued internally. See PO Resp. 18–19. We also find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the Technical Data Sheets are preliminary because other, later-dated technical data sheets (Exs. 2012, 2013) lack the “preliminary” label and list characteristics that are different from those in Exhibits 1005–1010. See PO Resp. 19 (comparing, e.g., Ex. 1009 and Ex. 2013; Ex. 1005 and Ex. 2012). The Technical Data Sheets may support a finding that the Xirallic® products they describe existed as of the dates on the documents, but they do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther
“witnesses. See Elbit Systems of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., 620 F. App’x 916, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856 (1982)). We have reviewed the witness testimony in the record and, more particularly, Mr. Choi’s deposition answers regarding Petitioner’s purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C came. We find that Mr. Choi’s responses cast doubt on the credibility of his declaration testimony, namely with regard to the public availability of Sample C. Mr. Choi represented that he was involved in the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Ex. 2011, 48:1–23. Mr. Choi stated that he instructed Petitioner’s marketing team manager to buy the sample from a distributor of Patent Owner’s products located in Europe. Id. at 48:24–49:4. Mr. Choi stated that he has evidence of the transaction, but refused to reveal the name of the company from which Petitioner purportedly purchased the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 49:5–50:3) and refused to produce an email in his possession that would corroborate his testimony regarding Petitioner’s acquisition of the product (id. at 50:8–16, 51:10–23). Mr. Choi represented that he does not remember how much Petitioner paid for Sample B. Id. at 56:4–5. Mr. Choi admitted that the entity from which Petitioner acquired the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken is “not currently a Merck distributor” (Ex. 2011, 50:4–7) and was not “a Merck distributor at the time” that “samples B and C were purchased” (id. at 51:25–52:2). According to Mr. Choi, the company is a “former distributor” of Patent Owner’s products. Id. at 52:3–6. Mr. Choi did not know, according to his testimony, when that unnamed entity first obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:7–10) and he stated that he did not have personal knowledge of how the entity obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:12–19). Instead, Mr. Choi assumed the entity was “able to obtain the sample through the routine course or process” the entity uses “to take samples or get samples.” Id. at 52:12–19. Mr. Choi believed the sample of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was sealed when Petitioner received it because samples from dealers are sealed, and he remembered observing that the package was from a dealer. Id. at 52:24– 54:25. However, Mr. Choi admitted that he did not obtain a technical data sheet or certificate of analysis for the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken. Id. at 59:6–11. Mr. Choi also answered questions regarding Petitioner’s purchase of Samples D and H. Ex. 2011, 62:20–66:8, 67:7–9, 73:12–13, 73:17–22. Similar to his testimony regarding Samples B and C, Mr. Choi admitted withholding an email regarding the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken. Id. at 62:20–63:9. Mr. Choi also admitted that he did not know how Akzo USA or Axalta obtained the Xirallic® the companies sold to him, and admitted that Akzo USA was not a distributor of Patent Owner’s products at the time Petitioner purchased the product. Id. at 63:10–66:8, 73:17–22. Mr. Choi also admitted that Petitioner did not pay Akzo USA for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken, and did not pay Axalta for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample H was taken. Id. at 67:7–9, 73:12–13. Although Petitioner presents declaration testimony from Mr. Choi representing that he purchased the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken in October 2011 (Ex. 1004 ¶ 16), Mr. Choi’s declaration testimony lacks corroborating evidence, and his deposition testimony does not support that the product was available to the public, as we found in our Final Written Decision. See Final Dec. 27–28. Notably, Petitioner produced corroborating evidence for Mr. Choi’s acquisition of Samples A, H, and I. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 13 (citing Ex. 1047), 18 (citing Exs. 1024, 1025). However, Mr. Choi withheld similar evidence for the Xirallic® lots from which Samples B, C, and D were taken. See Ex. 2011, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 62:20– 63:9; Final Dec. 28. As Patent Owner argues, there is “no information to determine when a contract was established, that there was consideration for the exchange, that the product was available to be delivered when the alleged transaction took place, or even when the product was delivered. Choi has no memory of what was paid for the product.” Sur-Reply 24–25; see also PO Resp. 13–14; PO Br. Rem. 2–4.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the evidence discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C was available to the public. Regardless of whether a company avoids wasting shelf life of its products (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 15–16), there is no persuasive evidence in the record showing that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was released from quality control and then made available to the public by Patent Owner. Mr. Choi’s testimony shows that Petitioner obtained the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken in an atypical manner (i.e., not from Patent Owner or one of Patent Owner’s current distributors) (Ex. 2011, 49:5–50:7, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 51:25–52:6, 52:12– 19), and there is no evidence in the record to show that the lot of Xirallic® was intended for sale, rather than for experimental use only or for some other restricted use. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C qualifies as prior art against the ’861 patent, and we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’861 patent is unpatentable over the grounds relying on Sample C.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 10,647,861 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,647,861 - Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co. KG v. Adapa Flexibles Denmark Slagelse A/S F/K/A Danapak Flexibles A/SAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · PGR2023-00008 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 4–13 are unpatentable; claims 2 and 3 are cancelled, and proposed substitute claims 14–24 are denied because Petitioner proved them unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“skill in the art, because Petitioner’s position is more consistent with the ’624 patent Specification and the prior art. Our ultimate determination, however, would be the same under either party’s proposal. The two levels of skill in the art put forth by Petitioner and Patent Owner are not substantially different and, in fact, overlap significantly. Neither party has persuasively explained how, if at all, the proposals of their respective experts regarding the level of ordinary skill change the analysis in this case. The Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented by each declarant in this case. Gnosis S.P.A. v. S. Ala. Med. Sci. Found., IPR2013- 00118, Paper 64 at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014). Accordingly, we evaluate each declarant’s testimony along with the remainder of the evidence before us to reach our conclusions. Moreover, an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required in all situations, as the level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [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, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“generally RMTA Opp. Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner has shown that the proposed substitute claims meet the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 326(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.221.” slip op. at 58
- ExcludeOther
“further corroborating evidence. Dr. Herb’s contentions from the prosecution of Application No. 16/516,792 not only concern another patent application altogether, but are merely a portion of the evidence we have before us concerning the tie layer arguments and the interpretation of that term. Other evidence suffices to corroborate Petitioner’s contentions, and the Herb Declaration is ineffective, in view of the totality of the evidence, to refute Petitioner’s positions. Even if the disputed evidence is considered, we have accorded it its proper weight and we are nevertheless unpersuaded that Patent Owner has prevailed in its arguments. Thus, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot as to Exhibit 2019.” slip op. at 75
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Optional or preferred embodiments of particular configurations disclosed in Riis do not rise to the level of teaching away. Additionally, our reviewing court has explained that a reference must be “considered for all it taught, disclosures that diverged and taught away from the invention at hand as well as disclosures that pointed towards and taught the invention at hand.” Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 296 (Fed. Circ. 1985). Riis’s teaching of using LDPE, an acknowledged adhesive layer and a “workhorse” among layers, points towards and teaches the invention at hand. We already addressed, above, the interpretation of “tie layer” and the function of Riis’s LDPE layer as a tie layer, and for similar reasons, disagree that Riis’s disclosure of an LDPE layer constitutes a “teaching away” as argued by Patent Owner. Finally, Patent Owner’s “peelable” arguments are insufficiently explained, as noted by Petitioner, to persuasively support Patent Owner’s teaching away arguments. Reply 16. Accordingly, we do not find any teaching away in Riis of using LDPE as a tie layer.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 11,260,624 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,260,624 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · PGR2023-00008 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted post-grant review of claims 1–13 on all petitioned grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute post-grant review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition, “if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’624 patent is unpatentable. Thus, we institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“evaluated the subject matter of Riis during examination of the ’624 patent, we agree that Riis was before the Office, as discussed in connection with our analysis of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework, above. Examiner T presumably was aware of Riis by virtue of having initialed an IDS containing Riis in the ’624 patent’s application and also by virtue of having initialed an IDS containing Riis in the ’067 Application, but Examiner T did not apply Riis in connection with the examination of the ’624 patent. On this record, Patent Owner also fails to show that the claims of the child application leading to the ’624 patent are substantially similar to those of the parent ’814 patent in which Examiner S considered Riis, and, thus, consideration of Riis during the prosecution of the ’814 patent does not equate to consideration of Riis during the prosecution of the ’624 patent. Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (2) that Petitioner fails to sufficiently show how the Examiner erred in evaluating the prior art, we find Petitioner’s arguments demonstrate that Examiner T, the examiner of the ’624 patent, did not apply Riis (or Wypych or Tatarka) during the examination of the’624 patent. As Petitioner argues, the error lies in that “the Examiner failed to consider the relevance of Riis as it applied to the pending method claims,” because although “Riis was considered during examination of the parent ’999 application, Riis was not similarly considered during examination of the ’018 application which led to the ’624 patent.” Pet. 76–77. We determine that the circumstances here demonstrate that the Examiner erred in evaluating the prior art.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2) to deny institution, arguing that the Petition fails to identify every RPI. Prelim. Resp. 10–11, 56–60. Patent Owner argues that the Petition “should also have identified its parent corporation, Huhtamäki Oyj . . . as well as the related corporation Huhtamaki, Inc. . . . as RPIs to comply with the statutory requirements for a PGR.” Id. at 10. On this record, we determine that we need not address whether Huhtamäki Oyj and Huhtamaki, Inc. are unnamed RPIs because, even if they were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325. See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential); Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential) (Board’s jurisdiction to consider a petition does not require a “correct” identification of all RPIs in a petition); see also Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB July 18, 2017) (“evidence [of failure to identify all RPIs] is, at best, suggestive regarding an issue that is not jurisdictional”); Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f a petition fails to identify all real parties in interest . . . the Director can, and does, allow the petitioner to add a real party in interest.” (quoting Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1374 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc))). Here, notwithstanding the arguments devoted to the RPI issue in the Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, and Preliminary Sur-Reply, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted Huhtamäki Oyj or Huhtamaki, Inc. to gain some advantage. As Petitioner argues, the “RPI analysis is not necessary at institution, because Patent Owner has not alleged Petitioner would be time barred or otherwise estopped based on unnamed RPIs.” Prelim. Reply 5 (quoting SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18). As SharkNinja states, certain Board decisions go through extensive analysis to determine whether parties should have been named as RPIs, whereas other Board decisions determine that “such a lengthy exercise is unnecessary for the purposes of rendering a decision on institution of trial.” SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 19. Here, as in SharkNinja, we find the latter approach better serves the interest of cost and efficiency. Thus, at this time and on this record, we will not consider whether Huhtamäki Oyj or Huhtamaki, Inc. must be named as RPIs.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the invention “would have had a relevant technical degree in Chemical Engineering, Polymer Science, Materials Science, or the like, and 2–3 years of experience in laminate or film manufacture or similar packaging manufacture and that less experience may be necessary with additional education and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–72). In its 4 Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner appear to present any evidence directed to secondary considerations. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp.; Prelim. Reply; Prelim. Sur-Reply. Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the prior art and the ’624 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding 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, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,260,624 - PTAB · Jul 6, 2022 · PGR2022-00022 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to establish that the ’629 Patent was eligible for post-grant review.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Determining whether a patent is subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA, and therefore eligible for post-grant review, is straightforward when the challenged patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, or when the challenged patent issued from an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, without any priority claim. The determination is more complex, however, for a patent that issues from a “transition application,” that is, an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date. See MPEP § 2159.04.3 Entitlement to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 121, or 365 is premised on disclosure of the claimed invention “in the manner provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode)” in the earlier application. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e)(1), 120. Thus, for a patent issuing from a transition application, eligibility for post-grant review depends on whether the patent contains or contained at any time a claim that lacks written description or enabling support in a priority application filed before March 16, 2013.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner disregards the second part of the Federal Circuit’s two-part test by failing to address whether the specification of the ’629 Patent discloses structural features common to the members of the alleged genus. Prelim. Resp. 15–16; see Pet. 39 (quoting AbbVie, but omitting the two-part test). More fundamentally, however, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish that the claims of the ’629 Patent recite a “functionally-defined genus” that would trigger the application of the Federal Circuit’s two-part test. Ajinomoto, 932 F.3d at 1358, 1360; AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1299; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. Petitioner fails to show that the ’629 Patent claims recite a functionally-defined genus. Petitioner asserts that “claim 1 of the ’629 Patent claims a genus range of acceptable proportions of sugar reactants and amine reactants to the overall binder reactants.” Pet. 39. We agree with Patent Owner, however, that the limitations that Petitioner characterizes as a “genus range” are structural, not functional. See PO Resp. 17 (asserting that “[t]he claims themselves identify the[] common ‘structural features,’ specifying the ‘percent by dry weight’ of the ‘reducing sugar reactant’ and ‘amine reactant’ in the ‘binder solution’ used in the claimed method,” citing Ex. 1001, 6:4–11)).” slip op. at 13
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,968,629 - China Lithium Battery Technology Co., Ltd. v. Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2022 · PGR2022-00008 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–19 were more likely than not unpatentable on the asserted anticipation, obviousness, written-description, enablement, or further-limitation grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petition and do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We agree with the parties that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a post-graduate or equivalent degree in material science and engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or a related field, and three to five years of work experience lithium ion battery technology, battery electrode materials, and experience with XRD analysis, which is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding 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, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Although we do not fully adopt either party’s definition of the person having ordinary skill in the art, our determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, and we note that our conclusions would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“results of the tests relied on by Petitioner are representative of the properties of Batteries #1–6, L, M, and S prior to the June 29, 2018 effective filing date of the ’932 patent.17 In that regard, we credit Dr. White’s testimony, which is supported by objective evidence of record, that the condition of lithium-ion batteries can change over time upon storage or usage, and that such changes could lead to changes in the OI values of the positive film. Ex. 2003 ¶ 73 (citing Ex. 2017, 617–618, Fig. 4; Ex. 2018, 418, Figs. 7, 8; Ex. 2019, 2737, 2739–40, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 2020, 33, Fig. 6). We further credit Dr. White’s testimony, also supported by objective evidence of record, that “overcharging, deep discharging, or exposure to heat, among other things” can cause swelling and deterioration of the batteries, which “in turn could lead to altered structure and OI values of the cathode.” Id. ¶ 74 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022; Ex. 2023).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties propose constructions for the terms “layered lithium- containing compound” recited in claim 1 and “monocrystal particles” recited in claim 17. Pet. 11–14; Prelim. Resp. 13–14. For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,930,932 - Neosales Corp LP v. Allan WendlingInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00058 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable on the asserted obviousness or written-description grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324. The standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) requires Petitioner to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged patent claim is unpatentable. Petitioner has not met that standard and, accordingly, we do not institute a post grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a High School Diploma with 5 years of experience in the flooring industry” and that they “would also understand that there is a requirement that many accessible surfaces must be slip resistant to minimize hazards to users of the surface.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–26). On this record, for purposes of this decision, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least the qualifications set forth in Patent Owner and appears, on this record, to be consistent with the disclosures of the ’285 patent and the asserted prior art references. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [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, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim construction is not necessary when it is not “directed to, or has been shown reasonably to affect, the determination of obviousness”). accordance with their ordinary meaning except for “laminate structure” and “laminated.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–41). As to these terms, the Petition relies on a quotation, describing what is shown in Figure 3, that includes the term “laminate structure” from the ’285 patent.5 Id. at 15 (“As best shown in FIG. 3, the body is a laminate structure and comprises a bottom elastomeric layer 24 of an elastomeric material . . . floor surface 26.”); Ex. 1001, 2:16–20, Fig. 3. Petitioner also relies on Merriam- Webster’s definition of “laminate” as ‘a product made by laminating,’” where “laminating” means “to unite (layers of material) by an adhesive or other means.” Pet. 15 (quoting Ex. 1013) (citing Ex. 1011 [sic] Ex. 1013). Petitioner contends that “the term ‘laminate structure’ should be construed to mean a ‘body having an adhered elastomeric material’” and that “the term ‘laminated’ should be construed as ‘adhered.’” Id. On this record, and for purposes of this decision, we decline to construe any claim terms beyond the limited extent we do so below in our analysis, because it is not necessary to do so in reaching our decision on institution.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“On this record, Petitioner fails to establish a basis for the recited “sticky polyurethane gel layer.” Although it is evident that Haas’ “bonding layer 2” can itself be formed of an adhesive material (see, e.g., Ex. 1009, 5:48–50), it can also be formed of material that is not adhesive (or sticky) (see, e.g., id. at 5:61–63). Petitioner offers no support for Haas’ polyurethane foam layer itself being an adhesive or sticky material. Pet. 21– 24. Further, the disclosure relating to Haas’ polyurethane layer is contrary to the polyurethane being an adhesive or sticky material because Haas teaches applying an adhesive to the polyurethane layer. See, e.g., Ex. 1009, 8:36–38, 11:32–12:43 (Examples I–IV). Likewise, Petitioner offers no support for the polyurethane foam being a polyurethane gel. See, e.g., Pet. 21–24. Petitioner rather merely asserts that its “augmented carpet-to-floor contact system would produce the same effect claimed by a ‘sticky [bonding] polyurethane gel [foam] layer,’” which falls short of establishing that the polyurethane foam meets the limitation requiring gel. Pet. 24. The Phillips Declaration essentially repeats arguments set forth in the Petition, including as to the “sticky polyurethane gel layer that includes a Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–67, with Pet. 20–24. The cited testimony, thus, lacks the necessary objective evidence to support the opinions expressed as to Haas teaching or suggesting a “sticky polyurethane gel layer.” See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,806,285 - Solvay USA Inc. v. Worldsource Enterprises, LLC, Eco Agro Resources LLC, And Eco World Group LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 10, 2020 · PGR2019-00046 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · PGR · Rehearing
The Board held claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations and denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request.
RulingsRehearing decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In light of the complete record now before us, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition to the academic requirements associated with obtaining a bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, Petitioner’s definition includes at least two years of experience specific to chemical formulations used in the agricultural industry. Pet. 8. Patent Owner’s “definition” is generic to “formulation chemistry.” Sur-Reply 4. Patent Owner does not explain, nor do we discern, why the skilled artisan would not have had at least some work experience in developing chemical formulations in the relevant field, i.e., the agrochemical industry. Indeed, some of Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to solvent delivery systems used in the agricultural market. PO Resp. 57–78.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“filing date, we apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Id. at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Neither party offers a construction for any claim term. Pet. 11; see also PO Resp., generally. On the complete record, we determine that no claim limitations need an express construction to resolve the controversy.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“analogous art. PO Resp. 47; Sur-Reply 8, 15–16. Patent Owner incorrectly frames the analogous art inquiry by comparing whether the prior art references are analogous to each other. See PO Resp. 47 (“not all three references are in the same field of endeavor”); Sur-Reply 16 (asserting that CN400 “is not analogous art with Iannotta [] and/or Kolc” because CN400’s NBPT is purportedly “not dissolved in any solvent”). Our reviewing court has stated, however, that “[a] reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court stated Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Innovention Toys, 637 F.3d at 1322. Regarding whether the CN400 patent is in the same field of endeavor as the ʼ108 patent, we must consider the scope of the ʼ108 patent as a whole and not just the claims. In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting appellant’s attempt to rely on the claimed subject matter to define the relevant “field of endeavor” when the specification described a broader one). Significantly, the ʼ108 patent discloses both solutions and suspensions of NBPT. See Ex. 1001, 5:20–52, 6:5–12, 6:39–40 (disclosing various solutions of NBPT), and 13:24–36 (setting forth an embodiment that formed “a suspension of NBPT in the aqueous mixture” that may “be solved by agitation”). Therefore, regardless of whether CN400’s process set forth in its claim 1 results in a solution or suspension of NBPT, CN400 is from the same field of endeavor as defined by the ʼ108 patent itself––“solvent formulations for the urease inhibitor . . . NBPT.” Ex. 1001, 1:15–18. Even if CN400 was not in the same field of endeavor as the ʼ108 patent, we find it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. The ʼ108 patent identifies NBPT formulation toxicity as problematic to the environment, animals, and possibly humans (id. at 2:60–62, 4:8–33), and expressly states “it is desirable to develop formulations/fertilizers that are less toxic to the environment and to animals and humans” (id. at 4:34–36). The skilled artisan would have been aware of this toxicity problem with NBPT-containing formulations (Ex. 1025, 1; Ex. 1007 ¶ 6), and CN400 was also concerned with this problem (Ex. 1006, 1 (Abstract), ¶¶ 2, 5; see also Ex. 2006, 461 (machine translation of CN400 abstract noting how use of its fertilizer formulation will not pollute the environment), 462 ¶ 2, 463 ¶ 5. Notably, Patent Owner does not address this second test in its briefing. Tr. 39:6–11 (Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledging “[w]e did not address the other prong in the briefing”). Thus, on several bases, we find CN400 is analogous art to the ʼ108 patent and may be properly relied on in our obviousness determination.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,221,108 - Instrumentation Laboratory Company v. Hemosonics LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 8, 2019 · PGR2019-00033 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1, 4, 26, 36, 51, 52, and 55 because Petitioner did not show error in the written-description analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, the decision will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“As we stated in our Decision, Petitioner had the burden of proving that at least one of these claims failed to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Dec. 8. The only argument and evidence Petitioner presents, other than the lack of an express disclosure of a thermal conductivity value, is Dr. LaDuca’s statement that thermal conductivity of a plastic can vary widely. As we noted in the Decision, however, Dr. LaDuca also states that “[t]here are many polymers that may meet the open-ended range of thermal conductivity which may be suitable or unsuitable for molding (e.g., depending on the selected interrogation means).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 90. Given the broad range disclosed in the claims—a thermal conductivity exceeding 0.123 W/m °K—we determined that Dr. LaDuca’s statement that thermal conductivity values can vary widely, along with the statement that many polymers may meet the claimed range of thermal conductivity, did not provide adequate support for Petitioner’s assertion that there is no written description support for claims 4, 36, and 55 in the ’039 patent specification. As such, we did not misapprehend Petitioner’s evidence. Rather, in view of the lack of sufficient evidence from Petitioner, we determined that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that claims 4, 36, and 55 lack written description support in the ’039 patent.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“arguments addressing the thermal conductivity of Styron 666. Req. Reh’g 7–9. The rule governing a rehearing request permits “[a] party dissatisfied with a decision . . . [to] file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (emphasis added). This rule does not address explicitly whether the requesting party also may file new evidence with its rehearing request. The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Practice Guide”), however, is instructive on this matter. When discussing general procedures applicable to rehearing requests, the Practice Guide states that “[e]vidence not already of record at the time of the decision will not be admitted absent a showing of good cause.” Id. at 48,768 (emphasis added). A party may argue good cause exists in the rehearing request itself.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 9,977,039
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.