- 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 - Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01312 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 16, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Lundahl and Larsen; Ground 2 was conceded, and the motion to exclude was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not provided a valid justification for requiring a POSITA to have both an engineering degree and a medical degree. Prelim. Resp. 22. We agree, insofar as Petitioner has not clearly set out any particular explanation or evidence in support of its dual-degree requirement. In all other respects, we note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. Because we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed definition is reasonable and consistent with the ’028 patent and the cited art, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition. In any event, our Decision does not turn on this level of skill determination. B.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“device “[f]or the treatment of large-area tissues,” such as the backs of human patients, wherein several applicators 13 are “flexibly connected to each other through hinges.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 72). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have been motivated “to incorporate Larsen’s solution of connecting light applicators by hinges, to allow for adjustability of Lundahl’s device to provide the desired irradiance and irradiance uniformity to all target areas during PDT.” Id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 127). According to Petitioner, a “POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Lundahl with Larsen, because both references describe similar illuminators for using light to treat conditions on a patient’s skin.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 128). Petitioner’s proposed modification of Lundahl also involves using LEDs as a light source instead of Lundahl’s fluorescent tubes. Id. According to Petitioner, a POSITA would have been motivated to make this change because: (1) LEDs had a lower cost and a longer lifetime than fluorescent tubes; (2) fluorescent tubes were known to have inconsistent light output within the tube itself; and (3) “the use of LEDs would be more practical to reduce spacing between light sources and the edges of the panels, as opposed to the bulky metal couplings at the end of fluorescent tubes, to reduce optical dead space across the light surface.” Id. (citing Ex. 1014, 4:41–42, 6:31–42; Ex. 1015 ¶ 129). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because Lundahl and Larsen “describe similar illuminators and the conversion from fluorescent tubes to LEDs was a routine practice prior to 2015.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 131). Patent Owner does not meaningfully dispute the Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine Lundahl and Larsen. See generally PO Resp. To the extent Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the combination because it would negatively affecting uniform illumination (PO Resp. 24), the motivating benefit here—using adjustable LED panels instead of monolith fluorescent tubes—outweighs the alleged disadvantages for the many reasons given by Petitioner, including greater adjustability and improved LED performance. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify.”); Reply 14. We are persuaded that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Lundahl and Larsen for the reasons advanced by Petitioner.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s reasoning (i.e., that it would have been obvious to try placing the hinges on the inner side surfaces) is unsupported and conclusory. PO Reps. 53–54. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to identify a single prior art reference showing hinged structures on inner side surfaces. Id. This argument ignores that Larsen expressly identifies hinges on at least bottom side surfaces, and Petitioner merely proposes modifying their location from the bottom sides to inner sides. We find credible Dr. Grove’s testimony that relocating hinges would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1015 ¶ 155. Dr. Jokerst testifies that a POSITA would have been discouraged from placing hinges between Larsen’s adjustable applicators, because the hinges would create gaps that interfere with uniform illumination as well as the panels’ wiring, and create issues with the use and alignment of the panels. Ex. 2050 ¶ 175. However, a system with discrete panels connected by hinges (like in Larsen) will already have wiring, use and alignment technical challenges, regardless of the location of the hinges— the expected consequence of connecting multiple movable electronic panels. Moreover, the ’028 patent acknowledges in its discussion of conventional illuminators that placing hinges between panels was already known. Ex. 1001, 2:7–15. With respect to Dr. Jokerst’s opinion that the hinges would create gaps negatively affecting uniform illumination, we are persuaded that it would have been within the skill of a POSITA to locate the hinges on the inside surfaces “in a nearly flush arrangement,” such that the gaps would be minimized. Id.; Ex. 1015 ¶ 155. We also credit Dr. Grove’s supplemental testimony on this issue, directly refuting Dr. Jokerst’s testimony regarding gaps and uniform illumination (and therefore within the proper scope of reply, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument otherwise (Mot. 9). See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–20 (explaining LED light divergence and that the physical space caused by hinges “is easily addressed” to maintain uniform illumination).9 We further point out that the ’028 patent also suggests that gaps do” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Jokerst testifies that a POSITA would have been discouraged from placing hinges between Larsen’s adjustable applicators, because the hinges would create gaps that interfere with uniform illumination as well as the panels’ wiring, and create issues with the use and alignment of the panels. Ex. 2050 ¶ 175. However, a system with discrete panels connected by hinges (like in Larsen) will already have wiring, use and alignment technical challenges, regardless of the location of the hinges— the expected consequence of connecting multiple movable electronic panels. Moreover, the ’028 patent acknowledges in its discussion of conventional illuminators that placing hinges between panels was already known. Ex. 1001, 2:7–15. With respect to Dr. Jokerst’s opinion that the hinges would create gaps negatively affecting uniform illumination, we are persuaded that it would have been within the skill of a POSITA to locate the hinges on the inside surfaces “in a nearly flush arrangement,” such that the gaps would be minimized. Id.; Ex. 1015 ¶ 155. We also credit Dr. Grove’s supplemental testimony on this issue, directly refuting Dr. Jokerst’s testimony regarding gaps and uniform illumination (and therefore within the proper scope of reply, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument otherwise (Mot. 9). See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–20 (explaining LED light divergence and that the physical space caused by hinges “is easily addressed” to maintain uniform illumination).9” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,697,028 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,028 - Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alipinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–22 under the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner misstates the Decision’s reasoning. As is clear from the previous discussion, we determined that Petitioner’s articulated reasons for combining EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning, not because “EP’536 does not relate to ‘air bags,’” but because the means by which EP’536’s device inflates differs fundamentally from that of CN’180’s device. Dec. 17–18. Petitioner did not acknowledge this critical difference in the Petition, and continues not to do so in its Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning because EP’536’s inflation mechanism differs fundamentally from CN’180’s inflation mechanism. Dec. 17–18. As we stated, whereas CN’180’s fall-protection belt uses an airbag that requires an external source of pressurized air to inflate, EP’536’s garment does not need an external inflation device because “the gas generating agent 18 in each envelope automatically generates gas and inflates the envelopes in response to rising temperatures.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 15; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 5, 19). This difference reflects the fundamentally different purposes of the two devices: CN’180’s device is designed to provide “fall protection” to, e.g., “elderly people,” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 1, 3), whereas EP’536’s device provides “adaptive thermal insulation” for, e.g., garments worn by fire fighters. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–3, 250. Because of the different means by which EP’536’s and CN’180’s devices inflate and the different purposes for doing so, we were not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references as Petitioner proposed. Dec. 18. We further noted that the modification would not have improved the reusability of EP’536’s device “by having only one mechanism to recharge,” because EP’536’s “gas generating agent does not need any ‘mechanism to recharge.’” Dec. 18. Instead, we noted EP’536’s teaching that its gas generating agent “automatically recombines or condenses in response to a temperature decrease to return the envelopes, and therefore the garment, to its original thickness, at which point the gas generating agent is ready for subsequent reactivation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139–141). Finally, we determined that replacing EP’536’s envelopes with CN’180’s airbag “would have made EP’536’s invention unsuitable for its intended purpose: providing a protective garment with ‘adaptive thermal insulation.’” Dec. 19. We stated that “Petitioner does not suggest, and we have found nothing in the record to establish, that CN’180’s airbag would provide this feature.” Id. at 20.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“rationales for combining EP’536 and CN’180. Reh’g Req. 6–7. First, Petitioner asserts that we “improperly rejected Petitioner’s ‘simple substitution’ evidence in view of [the Board’s] incorrect conclusion that EP’536 does not disclose an ‘external source of inflation [EP’536’s dosing aids].’” Id. at 6 (citing Dec. 18–19). This argument is unpersuasive at least because, as we discussed above, EP’536’s dosing aids do not constitute an external source of inflation. Petitioner further argues that we incorrectly evaluated its “obvious to try” rationale because, contrary to our analysis, Petitioner did in fact identify a problem to be solved by its “finite number of solutions”: “simplify[ing] the design and reduc[ing] the number of required inflation mechanisms.” Id. at 6–7. The Petition’s entire “obvious to try” discussion is as follows: [A] POSITA would have found it obvious to try a one-piece airbag 10 with strip-shaped inflation units 12 in the EP’536- CN’180 airbag system because it would have been a selection from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (i.e., using one chamber with connected individual inflation units 12 versus multiple individual envelopes 20). 5 Petitioner also argues that dosing aids are “needed in order to make the disclosed device reusable.” Reh’g Req. 5–6. This is incorrect, as EP’536 conveys that the reusability of the device is a result of the gas generating agent condensing or recombining when temperatures fall. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139– 141. Even if it were true, however, it is unclear how it would support Petitioner’s argument. Pet. 16. As is evident, Petitioner did not identify a design need, market pressure, or other problem that would have been addressed by its identified “solutions,” and therefore we were not persuaded by this rationale. Dec. 19. Petitioner’s attempt to cure this deficiency in its Rehearing Request is tardy. We cannot misapprehend or overlook an assertion that Petitioner fails to make in the Petition. It is also insufficient. Petitioner does not provide any evidence of a known design need or market pressure to “simplify [EP’536’s] design” or reduce the number of “required inflation mechanism” it uses.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC / Solaris Oilfield Site Services Personnel, LLC v. Masaba, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01179 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 are unpatentable under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Waldner, Dynatek, and additional references; the Board cancelled all challenged claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Also, to the extent Masaba relies on extrinsic expert testimony, we note that Masaba’s expert cites absolutely no support for his understanding of the claims, much less explains why we should adopt his understanding over the plain and ordinary meaning of “conveying aggregate” and “moving aggregate.” See Ex. 2004 ¶ 34. Absent supporting citations, such extrinsic testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. As such, we reject the notion that Waldner’s discharge chute member 242 is not a conveyor “for conveying aggregate” or “for moving aggregate,” as required by claim elements 1[h] and 1[i].” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that Dr. Durham does not possess the necessary level of skill in the art to qualify as an expert in this case. Looking at the specification of the ’689 patent and the prior art of record, we think Masaba sets the bar too high. We acknowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art should have some education and/or experience in the mechanical art of conveying aggregate materials, but we do not think opining on the ’689 patent and asserted prior art necessarily requires that person to have the amount of education and experience that Masaba advocates. The ’689 patent relates generally to an “aggregate transferring system for receiving aggregate from a vehicle and elevating the aggregate to a higher vertical level for deposit into, for example, a silo.” Ex. 1001, 1:15– 18. And, as described in the ’689 patent and discussed later, the transferring system is an assembly of known types of conveyors, such as a belly-dump truck conveyor, a bucket elevator, and an articulated belt conveyor, for transferring the aggregate horizontally and vertically from a belly-dump truck to the discharge point, such as a silo. Without doubt, Dr. Durham has enough education and experience to reliably opine on the combination of known parts.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction needed
“We reject this argument for several reasons. First, nowhere does the plain language of the claims specify how the aggregate is conveyed or moved from the conveyor extension assembly’s inlet to its outlet, be it passively by means of gravity or actively by means of a conveyor belt. Instead, the claims simply use those verbs according to their plain and ordinary meaning, which is “to transfer or deliver” or “to cause to go or pass” from one place to another. See Ex. 3001, 253 (defining “convey”), 760 (defining “move”).10 Second, the specification of the ’689 patent similarly uses these terms in a plain and ordinary sense, without ever attributing to them some sort of special meaning. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:9–12 (“The apparatus 10 is suitable for performing the transfer of aggregate from 10 We reference the original pagination of the dictionary in which these definitions appear. one location to another, such as, for example, from a vehicle carrying the aggregate to a silo 1 for storing the aggregate.”). The ’689 patent specification also makes clear that active conveyance of the aggregate is an option and not a requirement of the claimed invention, stating that the conveyor extension assembly “may further include a conveyor belt 150.” Ex. 1001, 10:60–66 (emphasis added). Limiting claim elements 1[h] and 1[i] to a device “for actively conveying” or “for actively moving aggregate” would improperly import limitations from the specification into the claims. Thus, based on the intrinsic evidence, we determine that claim elements 1h and 1k are properly construed to encompass passive and/or active movement of the aggregate via the conveyor extension assembly.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“Owner asserts” that two claim terms—“unloader structure” and “trailer structure”—should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Solaris submits an express construction detailing the corresponding structure in the specification for performing the recited function of the claimed unloader and trailer structures. See id. at 24–25. Only in disputing Solaris’s Ground 3 does Masaba advocate that the claim term “trailer structure” should be construed under § 112(f), and then only in conjunction with dependent claims 3 and 21. See PO Resp. 58. As such, we address Masaba’s proposed construction in our analysis of Ground 3. We now turn to Solaris’s grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 11,780,689 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,780,689 - Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00434 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Shen and Soldano did not establish a reasonable likelihood of anticipating claims 1–7.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS In our Decision, we concluded that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that either Shen or Soldano anticipated claims 1–7. Dec. 18, 26. Petitioner argues that we should institute review for three reasons. First, Petitioner argues that we abused our discretion by (a) “refusing” to interpret the scope of the claimed” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Owner’s interpretation of “carrier” as meaning “one or more components for supporting ROSA components such as an AWG.” Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 11). For our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges, we referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as Petitioner’s second alternative construction. Id. We also noted that Petitioner appeared to dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation when it argued that “carrier” should mean “a ceramic or silicon substrate.” Id. (quoting Pet. 10). We referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as the first alternative construction. Id. Rather than resolve this apparent dispute about the meaning of “carrier,” we found that both of Petitioner’s anticipation challenges failed under both interpretations of “carrier.” Id. at 10–26. Because we found that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden regardless of which interpretation of “carrier” applied, we found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute over that interpretation. Id. at 9–10. For the reasons expressed in Parts II.B–C below, we maintain our conclusion that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of proving that either Shen or Soldano anticipates any claim under either interpretation of “carrier.” Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in our alleged “refusal” to interpret “carrier.”” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Reh’g Req. 14. We cannot weigh Petitioner’s arguments based on its assertions about “caselaw” because Petitioner cited no cases to support its arguments. See id. Nevertheless, we infer that Petitioner intends its statements of “caselaw” to refer to the requirements to make out a case for anticipation. If so, Petitioner demonstrably miscasts what appear to be the legal principles for proving anticipation. As stated in our Decision: “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” Dec. 7. Making a showing that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim thus necessarily requires proof that a single reference “expressly or inherently” describes every element of that claim and with all elements being arranged in the reference as they are in the” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,379,301 - Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 10, 2025 · IPR2024-01186 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Kwatra does not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as required by the claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have the following characteristics: “a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science, or equivalent field, and two years of experience working on image or video processing or digital cameras.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). Petitioner states that, “[a]lternatively, a POSITA would have four years of experience working on image or video processing 6 Patent Owner asserts objective evidence of nonobviousness. Prelim. Resp. 19–27. or digital cameras.” Id. Petitioner further contends “[a]n advanced graduate degree in the disciplines cited above may make up for the work experience indicated above.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim Resp. 14–15. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’894 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner “does not believe any terms require a formal construction.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner agrees “no claim terms presently require construction to resolve any current dispute between the parties.” PO Resp. 15. We do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language at this juncture because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Kwatra teaches, at Equation 7, minimizing velocity and acceleration of a function representing camera path (P). FF ¶¶ 6, 8–9. Kwatra does not state that this camera path function considers rotation. Rather, the words “camera path” suggest x, y, z movement of the camera rather than rotation of the camera. Dr. Foroosh’s testimony that Kwatra’s minimization of a smoothed camera path does not result in minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration is credible because this testimony is consistent with Kwatra as a whole and consistent with the other evidence of record. Id. ¶ 10. Kwatra recognizes that image rotation angle (“θ”) may not remain smooth. Id. ¶ 12. But rather than attempting to minimize velocity and acceleration of rotation of the camera housing, Kwatra states that applying a smoothness constraint on rotation angle “may be non-linear.” Id. ¶ 13. Consistent with Kwatra, Dr. Foroosh credibly explains the difficulty of applying linear techniques to rotation. Id. Thus, Kwatra proposes instead constraining the sine and cosine of theta. Id. ¶ 14. The Kwatra provisional application is part of the Kwatra reference (id. ¶ 15), and it similarly opts for simpler schemes rather than estimating all parameters for all frames jointly. Id. ¶ 16. The provisional explains that the rotational component is relatively small such that non-linear computations minimizing velocity and rotation can be avoided. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. The testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Foroosh, explaining the provisional is credible (Ex. 2018 ¶ 72) because it is consistent with Kwatra’s complete disclosure. Dr. Foroosh’s testimony is more credible than the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Katsaggelos, because Dr. Katsaggelos did not review the Kwatra provisional application and, thus, did not review the entire disclosure of Kwatra. Id. ¶ 19; see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (obviousness analysis considers whether “the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 28
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(id. ¶ 15), and it similarly opts for simpler schemes rather than estimating all parameters for all frames jointly. Id. ¶ 16. The provisional explains that the rotational component is relatively small such that non-linear computations minimizing velocity and rotation can be avoided. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. The testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Foroosh, explaining the provisional is credible (Ex. 2018 ¶ 72) because it is consistent with Kwatra’s complete disclosure. Dr. Foroosh’s testimony is more credible than the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Katsaggelos, because Dr. Katsaggelos did not review the Kwatra provisional application and, thus, did not review the entire disclosure of Kwatra. Id. ¶ 19; see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (obviousness analysis considers whether “the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,574,894 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,574,894 - Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,333,007 - Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00543 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Tesla’s rehearing request and left claims 8 and 18 not shown unpatentable under §103 over Hongo, Obradovich, Niki, and Newstrom.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s counsel during the hearing or any of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. As confirmed by Petitioner’s counsel, Petitioner relies solely on Newstrom’s disclosure of loading its spatial database 20 into solid state memory via a “wireless connection to [a] server” in asserting that the database “may be hosted on a server that is remote from a vehicle.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1012, 8:26–38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 197). Column 8, lines 27–29 is the only disclosure in Newstrom of a “wireless connection.” Although Petitioner argues that Newstrom’s system communicates wirelessly with the geospatial database while the vehicle is being driven (see Dec. 38 (citing Pet. 83); Tr. 19:20–22), Petitioner relies solely on the single instance of “wireless” in Newstrom’s disclosure to satisfy the recitation that the database (which Petitioner maps to Newstrom’s geospatial database 20) is “remote.” In the Decision, we explained that Petitioner’s reliance on Newstrom’s “wireless connection” and its assertion that the geospatial database may be hosted on a remote server were not persuasive to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to prove the unpatentability of claims 8 and 18 by a preponderance of the evidence, especially given Newstrom’s express disclosure that the geospatial database is located on the vehicle. Dec. 40–42. For example, we stated: Petitioner does not explain adequately why Newstrom’s disclosure that, when first initializing the database manager, the geospatial database is loaded into solid state memory by, for example, wirelessly transferring data from a server means that the geospatial database is remote from the vehicle. Similarly, Petitioner does not explain adequately why Newstrom’s disclosure that the database manager can load new portions of the data into solid state memory as the vehicle location changes means that the geospatial database is remote from the vehicle. Nor does Petitioner’s conclusory contention that “the geospatial database 20 may be hosted on a server that is remote from a vehicle” (Pet. 83 (emphasis added)) apprise us of disclosure that Newstrom’s geospatial database is remote from the vehicle. Dr. Morellas’ testimony is substantially identical to the Petition (see Ex. 1003 ¶197) and, thus, also fails to provide adequate support for Petitioner’s assertions. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner confirmed that it relied solely on Newstrom’s disclose of the database using a “wireless connection” by which the database manager communicates with the database in arguing that Newstrom’s geospatial database 20 is remote from vehicle 12. Tr. 19:14–24; see also Ex. 1012, 8:27–29. Petitioner, however, fails to explain adequately how such wireless communication indicates that the database is not located on vehicle, especially given Newstrom’s express disclosure (discussed above) that the database is onboard the vehicle.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Initially, Petitioner’s reliance on assertions made in its Reply, relying on Dr. Morellas’ second declaration, fail to persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended any arguments made in the Petition. Such post-institution arguments attempting to bolster the Petition are untimely and, thus, improper. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019).6 Even considering Petitioner’s Reply arguments, however, we are not” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,882,399 - PTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01406 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied institution of review of claims 1, 3, 4, 8–13, and 15 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.
RulingsRemand decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. A stay of litigation pending resolution of an inter partes review allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts, and strongly weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. The Guidance Memo states that “the Board will apply the Fintiv factors when there is a parallel proceedings at the International Trade Commission.” Guidance Memo 2. Patent Owner asserts that a stay of the ITC Investigation had not been requested at the time of the Institution Decision,7 and argues that “the ITC does not stay investigations pending IPR.” PO Supp. Br. 4. Patent Owner also notes that the Institution Decision issued “just days before the ITC evidentiary hearing.” Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner argues that this factor favors denial. Id. Patent Owner is likely correct that the ITC would not have been inclined to grant a stay if one had been requested at the time the Institution Decision issued. Moreover, the ITC conducted a full evidentiary hearing less than three weeks after the Institution Decision issued, and the target date for the ITC’s final determination is four months before the statutory deadline for the Board’s final written decision. PO Supp. Br. 5. Accordingly, we” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,925,202 - PTAB · Jun 18, 2025 · IPR2025-00321 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 16, and 17, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Boyer.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“approximately two weeks before the statutory deadline for a final written decision, but the most recent median time-to-trial statistics for Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas indicate that the actual trial date will likely be in July 2026, which is later than the statutory deadline to issue a final written decision in this proceeding in mid-June 2026. See Ex. 2001, 7 (median time from filing to trial of 23.2 months); Prelim. Resp. 10. Thus, we find this factor is neutral or weighs slightly against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been unpatentable over the proposed prior art. We analyze the asserted grounds with the above-noted principles in mind.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of skill, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears to be consistent with the ’713 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“We note that, as discussed below, we are able to determine whether to institute inter partes review of the ’713 patent without expressly construing the term “from multiple print heads or deposition lines.” See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As for Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner has failed to carry its burden to identify how the claims are to be construed, we disagree on the present record. Although Petitioner does not provide a preferred construction for the single term it proposes requires construction, Petitioner does identify which of its two alternative constructions applies to each of its asserted grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 6 (“Under the first construction, [the obviousness grounds] are applicable, and [the anticipation ground] would be excluded from the claim scope. Under the alternative construction, all of [the asserted grounds] are applicable.”). In our view, this approach does not fail to satisfy Petitioner’s burden under 37 U.S.C. § 42.104(b)(3).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,421,713
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.