• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2026 · PGR2025-00013 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 and 18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted prior art did not establish the claimed quick-connect system during reciprocation, and Clark was not analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id.” slip op. at 8

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

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 1[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick-connect system is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that many different types of connectors, whether they require alignment or not, were known. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick-connect system, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick-connect system configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick-connect system” recited in independent claims 1 and 18.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes: Quick-connect system 600 includes a piston 602 that has a hollow-end bore 608 for receiving the shaft 621 of a massaging head 620. Located within the bore 608 of piston 602 is a cylindrical seat 604. Cylindrical seat 604 retains a magnet 606. Magnet 606 is illustrated with its north pole located flush with the seat and facing toward the opening in bore 608. Massaging head 620 includes a shaft 621 having a cylindrical pocket 622 at the distal end. Located within the cylindrical pocket 622 is a magnet 624. Magnet 624 is positioned so that its south pole is located at the distal end of shaft 621. Accordingly, when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place. Ex. 1001, 6:57–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the bore and the seat located within the bore are “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the bore and the seat within the bore are “substantially cylindrical” when the massaging head and magnet are respectively received therein so that the magnet in the seat and the magnet in the pocket of the massaging head can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the bore and the seat within the bore were “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in claims 13–16 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shapes of the bore and the structure within the bore. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of claims 13–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,938,082 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,938,082
• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2026 · PGR2024-00053 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 34–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 unpatentable under § 112(a), § 112(b), or any asserted § 103 ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ proffered definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art differ in the details of the experience a POSITA would possess. Petitioner’s definition requires experience with rotating or reciprocating mechanisms, whereas Patent Owner’s definition requires experience with devices for human use and interaction. These differences, however, do not affect our analysis of the issues in this case. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 34[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick release connector is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that a POSITA would be able to recognize a quick release connector for a particular application. According to Dr. Pratt, A person of ordinary skill in the art would consider a number of factors, depending on the context and specific application of the connector, to determine whether a connector provides a “quick release.” Such factors could include whether the connector is designed to manually and easily connect and disconnect two objects, and whether tools are necessary to do so. Other factors to be considered may be based on the specific application or operating environment. Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick release connector, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick release connector configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick release connector . . . configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates a predetermined stroke length at the first speed” recited in claim element 34[e]. 4. Conclusion for Written Description For the reasons set forth above in sections II.C.1–3, Petitioner has not persuaded us that any aspect of claim element 34[e] lacks written description support. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as any of claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes that quick-connect system 600 includes two magnets with opposite poles facing each other: magnet 606 in the distal end of piston 602 and magnet 624 located in cylindrical pocket 622 of massaging head 620. Ex. 1001, 6:57–67, Figs. 6, 6A. The Specification further describes that “when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place.” Id. at 6:67–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the pocket is “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the pocket is “substantially cylindrical” when the pocket receives a magnet therein so that the magnets can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the pocket was “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in independent claim 34 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shape of the pocket. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,857,482 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,857,482
• CMS Cepcor Ltd. / CMS Cepcor Americas LLC v. Sandvik Intellectual Property ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable because Polinski and Piepho do not teach the claimed tapered region extending from the shaft’s second end, and Petitioner did not establish adequate motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the ’090 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less/different formal education and more work experience.” Id. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not object to the defined level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 3). appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’090 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “challenge, the crux of the parties’ dispute revolves around the limitation in claim 1 of “an axial region of the shaft body extending from the second end and being tapered relative to a longitudinal axis of the shaft.” We agree with for the tapered axial region and that starting point would be the extremity of the shaft not an undefined point in the “end region.” Because Patent Owner proposes a construction of “end” that would have general application to all claim terms including the first end of the shaft, the second end of the shaft, and the sleeve end, and that construction has no bearing on the issues we address below, we do not reach Patent Owner’s proposed general construction of “end” by itself. We determine that no other claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As discussed above in our claim construction analysis, apart from the issue of the general construction of “end,” we determine that this limitation uppermost extremity of the shaft. Because neither Polinski nor Piepho disclose a tapered axial region starting at the uppermost extremity of the shaft, we find that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinksi and Piepho discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “This paragraph discusses “accurate alignment” in connection with joint 21, not tapered end 25. Ex. 1018, 3:23–35. The paragraph subsequently states that both joint 21 and end 25 are tapered but that shaft end 25 may alternatively be cylindrical. Id. We also find nothing in this paragraph supporting Petitioner’s assertion that alignment “is notoriously more difficult with purely cylindrical shafting” (Pet. 16–17). In order to support its position, Petitioner improperly conflates separate statements in this paragraph of Piepho, i.e., joint 21 provides accurate alignment, joint 21 is tapered, and end 25 is tapered. Petitioner makes an unsupported logical leap that the result of these three statements is that tapered end 25 provides accurate alignment. However, Petitioner fails to reconcile this argument with the final sentence in this paragraph that shaft end 25 may also be cylindrical as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 “is an external view of another embodiment of” Piepho’s shaft. Ex. 1018, 2:49–50. In Figure 4, joint 21 has the same tapered configuration as shown in Figure 3 but end 25 is not tapered. Based on our review of Piepho’s Figures 3 and 4, we find that Piepho’s reference to “accurate alignment” refers to joint 21 and not to tapered end 25 as Petitioner alleges. Because Mr. Smith’s testimony (Ex. 1002, 59) essentially parrots the Petition on this point and is inconsistent with our finding, his testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to would teach this claim limitation.8 Because Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinski and Piepho teaches limitation 1b or an adequate motivation to combine, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is obvious over Polinski, Piepho, and Harless.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,014,090 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,014,090
• CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,647,861
• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2023-01382 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 were not shown unpatentable under any of five § 103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish sufficient motivation to modify or combine the prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “A petition must identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) Here, Petitioner merely provides general assertions about multiple references, without clearly identifying how, or why a POSITA would have been motivated, to modify the processes disclosed in those references to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, the Petition does not state with particularity that Saxler’s particular technique for etching is to be used instead of Beach’s etching step when substituting Beach’s self-aligned process for Saxler’s two mask process. Nor does the Petitioner provide a sufficient reason, absent hindsight, why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the references to result in a process that forms Saxler’s Modified Figure 1A. Thus, for these additional reasons, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Saxler, Beach, and Shenoy.” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Both parties agree that the differences between the definitions do not impact the analysis. Resp. 11; Reply 2. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’347 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’347 patent and the prior art. We also note that our Decision would be the same under either parties’ definition.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Shealy states that he understands paragraph 52 to mean that it is “fair game to pull the recess out of any of those figures [Figures 1A through 6].” Ex. 2004, 39:12–21. Dr. Shealy, however, also clarifies that “[a]s I said before, I think you could take all the embodiments and bring in which ones you want, depending on what you’re trying to accomplish.” Ex. 2004, 40:24–41:1. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that Dr. Shealy’s “statement to modify the reference depending on what you're trying to accomplish” means that “a POSITA may modify with reason to do so. A POSITA would have removed Saxler’s recess to obtain the benefits of enhancement-mode.” Tr. 19:19–25. Again, the Petition does not provide a reason why a POSITA would have removed Saxler’s gate recess.” slip op. at 28

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

    “remove the recess in Saxler Figure 1A to arrive at the allegedly enhancement mode transistor of Modified Figure 1A. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions in its Reply and at the hearing, the Petition makes no argument that a POSITA would have removed the recess from Saxler Figure 1A to realize the benefits of an enhancement mode transistor. See Reply 4–5; Pet. 24–68. Rather, the Petition merely asserts that a POSITA would have understood that the gate recess of Figure 1A is optional without providing any persuasive reason why a POSITA would have removed the gate recess but retained the sloped sidewalls of Figure 1A. Pet. 25, 40, 45. For example, Petitioner asserts that Saxler’s gate contact may be “recessed or non-recessed” and that when the gate recess shown in Figure 1A is not utilized, Saxler would have the structure of Saxler Modified Figure 1A. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81; Ex. 1007 ¶ 52, 66); see also Pet. 40, 45 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 52). Neither of these paragraphs provide sufficient motivation to a POSITA to remove the gate recess from Saxler Figure 1A. Saxler paragraph 52 states: Exemplary devices according to some embodiments of the present invention are schematically illustrated in FIGS. 1A through 6. Thus, while embodiments of the present invention are described herein with reference to a recessed gate structure or a non-recessed gate structure, other embodiments of the present invention may include or not include a gate recess. Accordingly, embodiments of the present invention should not be construed as limited to the particular exemplary embodiments described herein but may include any suitable structure having a cap layer and/or passivation layer as described herein. Ex. 1007 ¶ 52. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Shealy states that he understands paragraph 52 to mean that it is “fair game to pull the recess out of any of those figures [Figures 1A through 6].” Ex. 2004, 39:12–21. Dr. Shealy, however, also clarifies that “[a]s I said before, I think you could take all the embodiments and bring in which ones you want, depending on what you’re trying to accomplish.” Ex. 2004, 40:24–41:1. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that Dr. Shealy’s “statement to modify the reference depending on what you're trying to accomplish” means that “a POSITA may modify with reason to do so. A POSITA would have removed Saxler’s recess to obtain the benefits of enhancement-mode.” Tr. 19:19–25. Again, the Petition does not provide a reason why a POSITA would have removed Saxler’s gate recess.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,748,347 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,748,347
• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21

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

    “The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25

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

    “b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,770,121
• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01383 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not sufficiently establish a reason to modify the asserted prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s argument because it fails to address Dr. Schubert’s academic and other experience with GaN transistors. Dr. Schubert is currently a tenured full professor in the Department of Electrical Computer, and Systems Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and was previously a tenured full professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boston University. Ex. 2001, 129. Additionally, Dr. Schubert was the director of Boston University’s Semiconductor Devices Research Laboratory. Ex. 2001, 129. Dr. Schubert persuasively explains that his general expertise is in the field of electrical engineering and applied physics, including semiconductors, processing, and devices and his specific expertise is in the field of semiconductor materials (such as GaN), semiconductor devices, semiconductor integrated circuits, ohmic contacts, Schottky contacts, HEMTs, and optoelectronic devices such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Ex. 2001 ¶ 11, App’x A pp.129–137. His experience includes “the design, growth, fabrication, and testing of semiconductor devices as well as the employment of these devices in a variety of applications” and he is “familiar with both the design of such transistors [HEMTs] and the manufacturing processes used for FETs. Ex. 2001 ¶ 11, App’x A, pp. 129–137. He is an author or co-author of numerous text books and articles, and co-inventor of numerous patents, including those dealing with HEMT transistors and GaN devices. Ex. 2001 ¶ 13, App’x A, pp. 129–137. Petitioner fails to present any persuasive argument or evidence that Dr. Schubert’s extensive education and experience regarding GaN transistors is insufficient or lacking such that his testimony should be given little weight. Finally, we disagree with Petitioner’s additional argument that that its expert’s testimony (Dr. Shealy) should be given more weight than Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony (Dr. Schubert) because “[u]nlike Dr. Schubert, Dr. Shealy is one of the pioneer scientists in the field of GaN transistors.” Reply 34 (stating that Dr. Shealy’s research lab built the first GaN HEMT device on silicon in 1999 and citing Ex. 2002, 87:19–238). Obviousness is determined through the lens of a “person of ordinary skill in the art,” not through the lens of a person with extraordinary skill or a pioneer in the field. Given Dr. Schubert’s extensive relevant education and experience, Petitioner does not persuasively explain why Dr. Shealy’s testimony on any specific topic, or his testimony in general, should be given more weight than Dr. Schubert’s.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”). Graham, , 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or material science or a closely related field and at least two years of experience in semiconductor device design or fabrication, including the processing of semiconductor materials, analysis of device operation, or the development of new device topologies. Additional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex 1003 ¶ 69). Patent Owner did not dispute this proposed definition prior to institution. See generally Prelim. Resp. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. After institution, Patent Owner asserted a slightly different definition of a POSITA, namely someone who “would have possessed at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, physics, material science, or a closely related field, and three years of professional work experience in the epitaxial growth, design, and fabrication of semiconductor electronic devices, including those of GaN.” Resp. 17. Relevant graduate education could substitute for the professional work experience. Id. Upon review of the full record, we see no reason to modify, and we thus maintain, the definition of a POSITA applied in our Decision on Institution. We also determine that our decision would be the same under either of the parties’ proposed definitions.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “During the proceeding, the parties also dispute the proper construction of “etching away the doped GaN layer, except a portion of the doped GaN layer beneath the gate contact” as recited in step [1e4] and provided briefing on this issue. Papers 35, 36, 37, 38. Because, as explained below, our determination rests upon Petitioner’s failure to show a sufficient reason to modify the asserted art, which is not dependent upon any particular claim construction, we need not, and do not, address these claim construction issues. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeDenied

    “III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBIT 2008 Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 25, “Mot.”) Exhibit 2008, which is a hearing transcript from the parallel ITC investigation. Mot. 1. Because we do not rely upon Exhibit 2008 in our Decision, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 8,404,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,404,508
• Intel Corporation v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00991 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1 and 13–17 not unpatentable, finding the asserted obviousness grounds deficient in claim limitations or motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties proposed definitions differ in that Petitioner would permit a degree in “materials science” and require three years, as opposed to two years, of relevant experience. Compare Pet. 9 with PO Resp. 14. On this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition, as it is more consistent with the prior art of record and the disclosures of the ’702 patent. We note, however, that neither party contends that the outcome of this case depends on the slight differences in the proposed definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate. Pet. 11–12. First, the plain language of the claim does not require merely a “layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells, but rather “a stackable add-on layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells; that plurality is bonded to the dielectric layer. Ex. 1001, 12:29–32. A construction that gives meaning to all words of the claim is preferred. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As discussed above, we do not understand a “stackable add-on layer” to include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. Pet. 16, 29 n.11, 51 (“In Lee, each level 3104 is deposited on the underlying level of array 3101.”). Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Analysis: Claims 14–17 Claims 14–17 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 13. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to claim 13. Pet. 31–41. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14–17 would have been obvious over Lee.” slip op. at 19

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Aspar would improve Lee, would solve a problem in Lee, and that Petitioner is proposing to use Aspar in a way that is not disclosed in the reference. PO Resp. 49–50 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 153–162); Tr. 57:24–58:12; Pet. 61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (asking whether a technique “would improve similar devices in the same way”), 420 (asking whether there was a known problem in the art), 421 (asking whether one of ordinary skill in the art had reason to “pursue the known options”); Intel, 61 F.4th at 1381 (explaining that obviousness may be demonstrated by showing that there was a known problem in the art (“cache coherency in multiprocessor systems”) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that that the prior art solution to this problem (“global segmented secondary cache”) would improve the system of another prior art reference). Petitioner does not persuasively show that there was any known problem in the art with respect to Lee or its monolithic method of constructing memory arrays. Nor does Petitioner provide persuasive argument or evidence that Aspar’s wafer bonding would improve Lee’s memory device.10 For example, Petitioner states in a conclusory fashion that Aspar would address the known problem of “fabricating 3D structures,” but does not explain what those problems were or why Lee fails to solve them. Pet. 61. Dr. Sechen’s testimony merely parrots the Petition, providing no further analysis or explanation of what problem might exist in Lee when fabricating its 3D structures. Ex. 1003 ¶ 212. The Petition notes that Aspar transfers “thin layers of very good thickness homogeneity and with a high crystalline quality,” but the Petition never asserts that Lee’s direct deposition method fails to provide these same or similar qualities. Pet. 60–61.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,378,702
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00900 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–17 were not shown unpatentable: Lee-based grounds fail on the stackable add-on layer limitation, and Watanabe-based grounds fail on nonvolatile memory, enablement, or motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “meaning in the art. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that, absent an accepted meaning in the art, “we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided for by the patent itself”). Thus, we must attempt to discern the meaning of this term from the claim language itself and from the remainder of the intrinsic record. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As discussed above, we construe “stackable add-on layer” to not include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. See Pet. 52 (asserting that in Lee “the layers of the array are directly deposited on the layers of each underlying level, and the array is deposited on the interlayer insulating layer formed over a substrate”); see also id. at 70 (“Lee discloses forming vertical memory devices through layer-by-layer sequential deposition on the substrate . . . .”). Therefore, Petitioner does not show that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 54–59. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 15 would have been obvious in view of Lee alone. E. Claims 16 and 17 over Lee and Endoh Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Lee and Endoh. Pet. 59–69. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims, however, do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Lee and its monolithic, sequentially deposited memory array. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over Lee and Endoh.” slip op. at 18

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

    “combined Lee and Watanabe to achieve improved integration density. Pet. 71. Petitioner concedes, however, that the benefits of Lee’s design related to 3-D integration and improved integration density would be obtained if Lee’s memory structures are formed using either Lee’s monolithic construction method or Watanabe’s alternative stacking method. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶ 34). Thus, we are not persuaded that improved integration density provides a sufficient rationale for Petitioner’s combination of Lee’s memory device and Watanabe’s stacking method. Petitioner argues that Watanabe’s stacking method “improves the accuracy of the wiring” because the wiring is made “for each planar member.” Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:1–3). Watanabe also states that its disclosed methods provide “a low interconnection wire resistance.” Ex. 1005, 6:20–23. Petitioner does not, however, explain sufficiently how Watanabe’s stacking method would improve Lee’s device. For example, Petitioner does not address whether the alleged wiring benefit already existed in Lee’s monolithic array or explain how this benefit would also apply to Lee’s particular memory array, which differs in construction and elements from Watanabe’s device. This diminishes Petitioner’s benefits-based motivation to combine arguments. In general, a petitioner need not demonstrate that a particular alternate method would improve a prior art device in order to show a motivation to combine. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023); see Pet. Reply 20 (citing Intel). But here, Petitioner affirmatively invokes improvement of Lee’s device as a reason for the combination, and we must evaluate Petitioner’s contention. Moreover, any relative lack of improvement or benefits must be weighed against any problems the alternative method would introduce. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795–96 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting that simultaneous advantages and disadvantages to a proposed combination must be analyzed to determine whether the disadvantages “outweighed any reason to combine”). Here, as discussed above in more detail with respect to the ground based on Watanabe, the evidence shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Watanabe’s bonding temperature of 900– 1000° C to damage the electronic devices in an underlying substrate. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 75–76; Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7; Ex. 2027, 715. The expected damage to Lee’s device, when balanced against the limited evidence of a benefit to the combination,7 outweighs the reason to combine Lee and Watanabe set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe. 2. Analysis – Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 both depend directly from independent claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claims 14 and 15 do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 73. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe.” slip op. at 40

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “We credit the testimony of Dr. Przybylski that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Watanabe’s stacked structure would be severely impacted if bonded at a temperature above 900° C, as disclosed in Watanabe. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 76–77. Dr. Przybylski’s opinion is supported by Dr. Lee’s testimony (Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7, 125:6–126:7), as well as Watanabe (Ex. 1005, 6:6–14) and Batude (Ex. 2027, 715). As further discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not rebutted Patent Owner’s showing of nonenablement, and Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate that Watanabe was not enabled for bonding temperatures of 900–1000° C, as of the 2004 filing date of the ’702 patent.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,378,702
• Pioneer Pet Products, LLC v. Oil-Dri Corporation Of AmericaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00691 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable under any of the three §103 grounds because the Petition failed to establish a required limitation for each combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “For purposes of the present invention, the term “removably clumpable” refers to a litter that, when exposed to a wetting agent forms one or more clumps having a firmness of sufficient structural integrity and hardness to withstand mechanical separation from unwetted litter for disposal. A litter material having a clump strength of ≤1.33 using the Standard Drop Method Test (described below) 30 seconds, 1 hour, 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours or 72 hours after the clump is formed by exposure to a liquid is removably clumpable. A litter that is removably clumpable, i.e., has a clump strength of ≤ 1.33 using the Standard Drop Method Test, has a clump strength that is substantially the same as a litter comprised of only the sodium bentonite of the litter. PO Resp. 23–24 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:24–36). Patent Owner contends that this passage makes clear that it “defined the term ‘removably clumpable’ to mean a litter having a clump strength of ≤ 1.33 using the Standard Drop Method Test at various times after the clump has formed.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:24–36, 11:5–7). Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner abandoned the claim construction it proposed in the Petition in its pre- Institution Decision Preliminary Reply, and that Petitioner now agrees with Patent Owner’s proposal, which we adopted in the Institution Decision. Id. (citing Paper 8, 1; Ex. 2012, 23:13–24:1).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Although Mr. Raymond opines that “a PHOSITA would have clearly understood” that the combination satisfies the limitation, his opinion lacks adequate explanation to support his conclusion. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 139. 8 Patent Owner contends that in order to perform the calculation necessary to determine compliance with the 47% of the total external surface area limitation, the “loose fill bulk density” and “particle size distributions” (not mere average particle sizes) must be known. See PO Resp. 6. Petitioner disagrees, but attempted to follow the method set forth in the ’393 patent in its argument and evidence filed in connection with its Reply. See Tr. 8:15– 9:8. Petitioner does not meet its burden to show the combination teaches a limitation by simply stating that a PHOSITA would recognize that the limitation would be met, without explaining how or providing the data necessary to test the assertion. Because neither the Petition nor the declaration of Mr. Raymond identifies any particle sizes for the cellulose-containing filler material it relies on or any method of calculating the total surface area of the litter formulation, without that information, Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would have inherently, or necessarily, met the 47% of the total external surface area limitation.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Our rules also state that a “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also PTAB Consolidated Patent Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 21, 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf, 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). Because of the governing statute, rule, and case law, “an IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369–70 (concluding that reply brief and accompanying declaration exceeded the proper scope of reply due to introduction of new theories and reliance on new evidence); Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286–87 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the petitioner improperly shifted its position away from that in the petition by relying on a different portion of a prior art reference and proposed modification). In other situations, “a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.” Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1383–84 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (summarizing cases). Accordingly, “there is no blanket prohibition against the introduction of new evidence during an IPR.” Id. at 1384. In some situations, for example, a reply may permissibly expand upon previously-made arguments in the petition without amounting to the introduction of a new rationale and without citing new evidence. See Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 901 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018). slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,439,393 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,439,393

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.