- PTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · PGR2025-00025 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds, finding it more likely than not that claim 1 is anticipated by the Gatorade Label.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Post-grant review is available for patents that issue from applications that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the ’422 Patent is eligible for post-grant review and has shown it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’422 Patent is unpatentable under § 324(a). Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’422 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would possess at least (1) a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or a related field, with (2) five years of experience in material identification and characterization using multiple analytical methods and field sampling, or equivalent research or professional experience.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 24). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for one of ordinary skill in the art nor provide a proposed definition of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“336. The applicant explained that not all combinations of shrink films and light blocking materials are recyclable. Id. at 335. The applicant explained that films can be compatible with PET recycling in two ways, (1) the film can float in water and be separated from PET that sinks in water or (2) the PET films crystallize and “can be recovered with the PET stream.” Id. at 336 (citing “A Resource Document by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR)”) (found at Ex. 1002, 323–332) (emphasis omitted). The applicant explained that “removing the label before or during the recycling process is not evidence of the recyclability of the label” and that “[r]emoving the label during the recycling process is not equivalent to actually recycling the label.” Id. at 335. As such, a POSITA reading the prosecution history would understand that a label is not recyclable with a PET container, as recited by the independent claims, by removing the label from the PET recycle stream before or during the recycling process.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“To determine how a person skill in the art would determine if a shrink label is “recyclable” as recited in the independent claims, we look to how the Specification of the ’422 Patent describes or defines recyclable shrink labels. For example, the ’422 Patent states that PET shrink films are generally considered recyclable if no inks are retained on the film after a caustic wash cycle typically used in PET reclaiming processes. Ex. 1001, 6:61–65. The ’422 Patent further states that labels are fully recyclable if the polymers used are clear, preferably clear PET, and the labels include inks that can be washed off in a “typical PET recycling wash (caustic wash).” Id. at 11:44– 49; see also id. at 11:49–54 (describing embodiments in which the labels are free or substantially free of inks that cannot be washed off in a caustic wash or where the labels are free or substantially free of color plastics that cannot be recycled). The ’422 Patent further discusses “industry standards” for determining whether various embodiments of shrink labels are recyclable. See, e.g., id. at 11:29–53. For example, the Specification states that the “Association for Plastic Recyclers (APR) Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures (PET-CG-02)” (Ex. 1005) can certify that a film is fully recyclable with a container or bottle. Id. at 11:34– 38. Additionally, the Specification states that labels “are recyclable according to the Evaluation of the Near Infrared (NIR) Sorting Potential of a Whole Plastic Article (SORT-B-01)” (Ex. 1010) and/or the “Evaluation of Sorting Potential for Plastic Articles Utilizing Metal, Metalized, or Metallic Printed Components (SORT-B-03)” (Ex. 1011). Ex. 1001, 11:39–44. The ’422 Patent further states that embodiments of the labels “are fully recyclable. For example, the labels may include inks that can be washed off in a typical PET recycling wash (caustic wash) and the polymers” are preferably clear PET. Id. at 11:44–48. The ’422 Patent thus provides various descriptions or standards to determine the recyclability of shrink labels. For the purposes of addressing the anticipation and obviousness grounds, we determine that any of these standards can be used to determine if a shrink label is “recyclable.” We note that our construction is preliminary and is based on the present record. We invite the parties to further the address the construction of “wherein the recyclable shrink label is recyclable with a PET container” during trial.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,961,422 - Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, 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))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00021 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“court proceeding to the Northern District of California (Ex[.] 1036[,] 8).” Pet. 73. However, on March 25, 2025, the District Court denied the motion to transfer. Ex. 2026. Thus, we find that factor 2 weighs in favor of exercising discretion.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner on this record. The language of claim 1 recites “location access rights of said device from said first wireless device.” The claim language does not limit the location access rights to be of only the one other device, at the exclusion of other devices. The ordinary and customary meaning of “location access rights of said device from said first wireless device” encompasses rights that allow other devices, in addition to the recited device, to access location information. The disclosure in the written description is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning. Although the written description states that an object of the invention is to provide a security feature which allows a user to limit or deny access to a particular user, the written description discusses other purposes served by the assignment of access rights. For example, the written description discloses that “[u]sers may be added, individually or in groups, to a list of users with location access rights to a specific user by that specific user. A specific user may, at any time, modify, delete, or add users allowed to access his or her location.” Ex. 1001, 3:22- 26. The written description further discloses that “a user may organize his/her user list into groups and assign access rights to that group (e.g., family member user group, close friend user group).” Id. at 13:9–12. The fact that the written description of the ’039 patent sets forth multiple objectives to be served by the access rights confirms that these terms should not be construed as limited to a single device. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Further, because the written description here includes an embodiment where a user assigns access rights to a group, we are persuaded that the scope of the disputed claim terms encompasses a group permission. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). At this stage, we interpret the scope of the “location access rights of said device from said first wireless device” to encompass at least the disclosed embodiment of assigning access rights to a group. Ex. 1001, 13:9– 12.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made Petitioner’s proposed combination of “Degnbol’s disclosure of both selection of location-based events and manual entry using the handset of the phone with Sheha, to improve user ease, given that such techniques were well-known and conventional to POSAs at the time of alleged invention.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 132). Degnbol describes that “[i]t is an advantage of the present invention that user ‘A’ can be alerted when user ‘B’ arrives or leaves the defined location(s) or area(s)” so as “to enable user ‘A’ to know in advance the proximity or approximate whereabouts of user ‘B’ before possibly acting upon this information by contacting user ‘B’ — or allowing ‘B’ to contact ‘A.’” Ex. 1035, 3:23–27. At this preliminary stage, we find that Petitioner provides sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty for purposes of institution. Based on the evidence and arguments currently of record, we find that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that the Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty combination teaches the features recited in claim elements [1D] through [1F] and Petitioner provides sufficient rationale to make its proposed combination. We find that Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. c) Conclusion—Claim 1 After consideration of the arguments and the evidence of record at this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently, for purposes of institution, that the combination of Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty teaches or suggests all recitations in claim 1. Also, we find that Petitioner provides sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty for purposes of institution. We find that Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. Based on the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Sheha, Degnbol, and McNulty.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,096,039 - PTAB · May 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00018 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“court proceeding to the Northern District of California (Ex[.] 1036[,] 8).” Pet. 75–76. However, on March 25, 2025, the District Court denied the motion to transfer. Ex. 2026. Thus, we find that factor 2 weighs in favor of exercising discretion.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over Sheha.” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“permission is operable of being provided by said first wireless device for said second wireless device to access location information about said location.” The claim does not recite that the permission is limited to permission for only the second wireless device. The ordinary and customary meaning of “a permission . . . for said second wireless device to access location information” encompasses a permission that allows other devices, in addition to the “second wireless device,” to access location information.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“On this record, in considering the background knowledge as well as the inferences that an ordinarily skilled artisan would draw from Sheha’s disclosure, we are sufficiently persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have caused the mobile telephone to display the map of Figure 5. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (In an obviousness analysis, a court will “look to . . . the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art” and “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). The references cited by Mr. Williams explicitly show what is already implicitly taught by Sheha, namely, that displaying the map of Figure 5 on a mobile telephone was within the background knowledge of a person of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–144; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 2, 21, p. 85; Ex. 1016 ¶ 27; Ex. 1014, 3:28–31, 4:43–58; Fig. 4B; Ex. 1017, 4:38–57, 5:13–17, 6:14–27, 6:59–7:6, Fig. 2; Ex. 1018, 2:2–7, 3:59–67, 5:48–57, Fig. 4B. We agree with Mr. Williams, that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the teachings of Sheha and his or her background knowledge, would have caused a mobile telephone to receive location information without initiating a telephone call and would have used the location information to display a map on the mobile telephone in a form similar to that shown in Figure 5 as taught by Sheha and as was well known in the art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 133–144.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,122,418 - PTAB · May 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00124 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–46 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling of the same within fourteen (14) days following the PTAB’s institution decision on the last of the pending IPRs” (Ex. 2008, 3), we decline to speculate whether the district court will grant a stay. Thus, we find that factor 1 is neutral. slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Upon consideration of the arguments and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’575 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’575 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar degree, with one or two years of experience with wireless networks and devices, such as cellphones and personal digital assistants (‘PDAs’), as well as wireless positioning technologies, such as GPS or triangulation,” and that “[m]ore education could compensate for less practical experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–54). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not challenge the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner’s expert. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’575 patent specification and the prior art.5” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner on this record. The language of claim 1, quoted above, recites “changing, at the direction of said first wireless telephone, a list of users on said remote server for a profile associated with said first wireless telephone that are allowed to access said location, wherein each user of said list of users is representative of one of a plurality of wireless telephones.” Ex. 1001, 12:65–13:3. The recitation of “said location” derives antecedent basis from element [1A], which recites “obtaining a location of a first wireless telephone,” thus “said location” in element [1C] is the location of the first wireless telephone. Id. at 12:62.7 The claim language does not limit access to the location of the first telephone to one other device, at the exclusion of other devices. Indeed, the claim language specifically recites that “a list of users” are changed “for a profile associated with said first wireless telephone” and that “each user of said list of users is representative of one of a plurality of wireless telephones.” Ex. 1001, 12:65– 13:3 (emphases added). The ordinary and customary meaning of “changing, at the direction of said first wireless telephone, a list of users on said remote server for a profile associated with said first wireless telephone that are allowed to access” to the location of the first wireless device “wherein each user of said list of users is representative of one of a plurality of wireless telephones” (Ex. 1001, 12:65–13:3) encompasses allowing “a list of users,” each having a telephone, access to the location of the “first wireless telephone” and further encompasses allowing other telephones, in addition to the recited plurality of wireless telephones access to the location of the first wireless telephone.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,374,575 - PTAB · May 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00019 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling of the same within fourteen (14) days following the PTAB’s institution decision on the last of the pending IPRs” (Ex. 2008, 3), we decline to speculate whether the District Court will grant a stay. Thus, we find that factor 1 is neutral. slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the evidence and arguments currently of record, for purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over Sheha, Smith, and Carey.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar degree, with one or two years of experience with wireless networks and devices, such as cellphones and personal digital assistants (“PDAs”) as well as wireless positioning technologies, such as GPS or triangulation.” Pet. 4. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50-54). Petitioner further contends that “[m]ore education could compensate for less practical experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner on this record. The language of claims 1, 8, and 15, quoted above, recite that the “wireless” telephonic “device is operable to assign location access right to” one other wireless telephonic devices (claims 1 and 8) and that the “first wireless device is operable to assign a second permission to said second wireless device” (claim 15). The claim language does not limit the location access rights to be assigned only to the one other device, at the exclusion of other devices. Nor does the language regarding assigning a “permission” limit that assignment to a single (and only to the) second wireless device. The ordinary and customary meaning of “assigning . . . to said one of said plurality of wireless devices, “assigning . . . to said first wireless telephonic device” or “assign a second permission to said second wireless device” encompasses a right or permission that allows other devices, in addition to the recited device, to access location information. The disclosure in the written description is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning. Although the written description states that an object of the invention is to provide a security feature which allows a user to limit or deny access to a particular user, the written description discusses other purposes served by the assignment of access rights or permissions. For example, the written description discloses that “[u]sers may be added, individually or in groups, to a list of users with location access rights to a specific user by that specific user. A specific user may, at any time, modify, delete, or add users allowed to access his or her location.” Ex. 1001, 3:22-26. The written description further discloses that “a user may organize his/her user list into groups and assign access rights to that group (e.g., family member user group, close friend user group).” Id. at 12:56−58. The fact that the written description of the ’283 patent sets forth multiple objectives to be served by the access rights or permission confirms that these terms should not be construed as limited to a single target device. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Further, because the written description here includes an embodiment where a user assigns access rights to a group, we are persuaded that the scope of the disputed claim terms encompasses a group permission. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). At this stage, we interpret the scope of the “assign access rights” and” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,204,283 - PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01490 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information presented in the petition and any preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–30 of the ’731 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Wrinkl, Inc. v. Slack Technologies, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00620 (D. Del. May 23, 2024). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also states that an “IPR was filed against the same patent in proceeding number IPR2024-01489.” Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner does not argue that we should exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Petitioner uses more than one petition to challenge the ’731 patent. “focuses on challenging the Patent Owner’s priority date.” Ex. 1017, 3–4. Petitioner ranks the instant petition second and argues the “petitions are materially different” with the instant petition addressing the challenged claims “using different prior art references that predate the alleged priority date.” Id. In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary” including “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” CTPG 59. Such is the case here. Patent Owner does not file any Preliminary Response or other paper disputing Petitioner’s use of two petitions to challenge the claims of the ’731 patent. Based on the record before us, we consider the merits of both petitions because we are satisfied with Petitioner’s stated reasons for filing two petitions. See generally Ex. 1017. C. The ’731 Patent” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related degree, and at least four years of experience with graphical user interfaces, and at least two years of experience in the graphical user interface field” or, alternatively “a master’s degree in computer science (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 39). We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that it gives the claim terms “their plain and ordinary meaning that they would have to a person having ordinary skill in the art [(‘PHOSITA’)] in view of the intrinsic evidence.” Pet. 6. At this early stage, neither party provides an express construction for any claim term. “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We, therefore, use the ordinary and customary meaning and do not provide an express construction for any term at this preliminary stage in the proceeding.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,973,731 - PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01489 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Cohen anticipates the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Identity of terminology is not required for a claim element to be met directly by the prior art. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted) (“[T]his is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”). For anticipation, we take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 13
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Wrinkl, Inc. v. Slack Technologies, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00620 (D. Del. May 23, 2024). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also states that a “second IPR was filed against the same patent in proceeding IPR2024-01490.” Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner does not argue that we should exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Petitioner uses more than one petition to challenge the ’731 patent. challenges the alleged priority date of the ’731 patent (IPR2024-01489) (‘First Petition’) and the second petition assumes that the Patent Owner’s claimed priority date is valid, and addresses prior art references predating that priority date (IPR2024-01490) (‘Second Petition’).” Ex. 1019, 1. In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary” including “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” CTPG 59. Such is the case here. Patent Owner does not file any Preliminary Response or other paper disputing Petitioner’s use of two petitions to challenge the claims of the ’731 patent. Based on the record before us, we consider the merits of both petitions because Petitioner’s stated reasons for filing two petitions are consistent with the CTPG. See generally Ex. 1019 (citing CTPG, 59 (“the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references)). C. The ’731 Patent” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner first must raise the issue of entitlement to a claimed priority date by “identifying, specifically, the features, claims, and ancestral application or applications allegedly lacking § 112 support for the claims based on the identified features.” Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 8 at 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014); Mission Integrated Techs., LLC v. Joshua Clemente, IPR2023-01285, Paper 16 at 18 (PTAB Feb. 23, 2024). Then, Patent Owner must make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier filing date(s), in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised by the petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“two years of experience in the graphical user interface field” or, alternatively “a master’s degree in computer science (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,973,731 - Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. v. P2i Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Cohen and Legein or Francesch and Legein; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’087 patent in June 20154 “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29); PO Resp. 13 (Patent Owner stating that it “does not dispute this characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also PO Sur-reply 1–2 (noting both parties’ agreement on the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the fully developed trial record, we determine that no claims need an express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, 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 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Because of Patent Owner’s shifting definitions of the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan, it is unclear on the complete record what precise definition Patent Owner and Dr. Senkevitch are applying when arguing the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 40, 52–55, 60, 68, 74, 76, 77, 80–86, 89, 91, 94, 95, 100, 102–105, 108, 110, 111, 113–116, 118–120, 122, 124, 127–134. We, therefore, give Dr. Senkevitch’s testimony regarding the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art minimal weight, which leaves us with Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported arguments regarding the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13. Moreover, as Petitioner correctly points out, the ʼ087 patent expressly teaches that the precise conditions for forming a protective polymeric coating “will vary depending upon factors such as, without limitation, the nature of the monomer compound, the crosslinking agent, the substrate, as well as the desired properties of the coating” and that such “conditions can be determined using routine methods.” Ex. 1001 15:1–15:5 (emphasis added); Pet. Reply 17. Where the patent itself leaves to the judgment of an ordinarily skilled artisan the assessment of these factors to ascertain suitable conditions for forming the protective coating, we find persuasive Petitioner’s view that it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to ascertain such suitable conditions.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claims of the ʼ087 patent recite obtaining the protective cross-linked polymeric coating “by exposing the device or component to a plasma,” the field of endeavor analysis in an analogous art inquiry does not exclusively turn on the claims at issue, but rather takes account of the entirety of a patent’s disclosure. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the PTO must show adequate support for its findings on the scope of the field of endeavor in the application’s written description and claims” (emphasis added)); In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting an argument that the field of endeavor was limited to a claimed “Internet terminal” when “the specification describes various communication media, including facsimile machines and email, as related to the invention.”). This is significant here because the ʼ087 patent discloses that “[t]he … invention relates to protective coatings” and specifically “relates to protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof, and methods of forming such coatings.” Ex. 1001, 1:14–17. Based on this disclosure, we find that the ʼ087 patent’s field of endeavor relates to “protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof” broadly, not just those formed on such devices or components via a plasma polymerization process as asserted by Patent Owner. Id. Although Cohen does not explicitly disclose that its crosslinked polymers constitute a “protective coating,” Cohen does disclose that its “copolymerizable mixture can be cast into films” (Ex. 1004, 2:61–62), that the polymerization can “effected in situ,” and that the polymers may be used in “numerous” electrical applications (id. at 5:17–25). Tr. 8:9–10:2, 27:2– 21; see Pet. Reply 5 (explaining how “Cohen described insulating polymers that could be applied as films and be used to protect substrates including cables and electrical coils.” (citing Ex. 1004, 2:60–63, 5:13–25)). These disclosures suggest strongly that Cohen’s crosslinked polymers––if cast into a film or formed in situ on an electrical device or component––would serve as a protective coating on that electrical device or component, even though Cohen does not expressly refer to its crosslinked polymers ipsis verbis as a “protective coating.” Thus, we find that Cohen is within the field of endeavor of the ʼ087 patent.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 11,041,087 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,041,087 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2023-01055 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claim 12 unpatentable over Grotmol and Hickman and denied the motion to amend because proposed substitute claims 21–29 were unpatentable.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Director Review and remanding for further proceedings. Paper 49 (“Acting Director’s Decision” or “DR Dec.”). That Decision states agreement “that the Board’s analysis of claim 12 did not make separate factual findings.” DR Dec. 2. The Decision instructs us on remand “to consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to claim 12 and as to proposed substitute claim 21” and “[r]egardless of the Board’s disposition on remand, the Board should explain more fully its findings as to claim 12 and proposed substitute claim 21.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Written Decision regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally DR Req. Upon consideration of the full record including the arguments in Patent Owner’s Request for Director Review, we maintain that determination here. More specifically, considering the subject matter of the ’344 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. See 2024 Final Dec. 10–11. Accordingly, with that exception, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“the differences as compared to claim 1, including those findings and determinations set forth in a section of the 2024 Final Written Decision titled “Overview—Claims 6, 11, and 12” (id. at 65–67) and in the sections titled “Claim 12” and “Conclusion—Claims 6, 11, and 12” (id. at 83–86). Further, based on the complete record now before us, including Patent Owner’s Request for Director Review, for the reasons given in our 2024 Final Written Decision and our additional reasons given herein, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Grotmol and Hickman combination teaches the limitations of claim 12.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Director Review and remanding for further proceedings. Paper 49 (“Acting Director’s Decision” or “DR Dec.”). That Decision states agreement “that the Board’s analysis of claim 12 did not make separate factual findings.” DR Dec. 2. The Decision instructs us on remand “to consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to claim 12 and as to proposed substitute claim 21” and “[r]egardless of the Board’s disposition on remand, the Board should explain more fully its findings as to claim 12 and proposed substitute claim 21.” Id.” slip op. at 3
Patent outcomesUS 11,238,344 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,238,344
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.