- PTAB · Apr 6, 2022 · DER2017-00031 · APJ Jameson Lee · DER · Institution
The Board instituted a derivation proceeding as to Respondent’s claims 24–36, finding sufficient evidence that claims 24–30 and 32–35 matched the disclosed invention.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The threshold showing for institution of a derivation proceeding is whether the petition demonstrates substantial evidence, which if unrebutted, would support the assertion of derivation.5 35 U.S.C. § 135(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(c). For establishing derivation, a petitioner must show that the respondent, without authorization, filed an application claiming a derived invention. 35 U.S.C. § 135(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(b)(2). The party asserting derivation must establish prior conception of an invention and communication of that conception to an inventor of the other party. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Hedgewick v. Akers, 497 F.2d 905, 908 (CCPA 1974).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Exhibits 1026, 1028, 1041, and 1042, constitute sufficient evidence, under the substantial evidence standard, to support Petitioner’s assertion of conception, except for the requirement of independent corroboration. For instance, there is no declaration testimony from any of the recipients of the email communications or people who were copied on those email communications to corroborate those email communications. There is no testimony from anyone at Pro-Tech to corroborate the nature and existence of the signed manufacturing outline that is Exhibit 1042.” slip op. at 9
None - Hyperbranch Medical Technology, Inc. v. Incept LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01836 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 8–12 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over Rhee ’500 or Rhee ’587, each combined with Bass or Tse.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Upon review of the parties’ respective definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as a person with either: (1) a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, polymer chemistry, chemical engineering, materials science and/or a related field and having at least one year of educational or work experience in the synthesis and development of biocompatible polymer materials; (2) a bachelor’s degree in in [sic] the field of chemistry, polymer chemistry, chemical engineering, materials science and/or a related field and at least two years of work experience in the synthesis and development of biocompatible polymer materials; or (3) any education and experience equivalent to (1) or (2). Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). We find that Patent Owner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, i.e., a person having “a Ph.D. degree, or equivalent education, in polymer chemistry, or a bachelor of science degree in chemistry or a closely related field and several years of experience in the development and manufacture of polymer materials for use as tissue sealants,” PO Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 27), does not differ materially from Petitioner’s definition. Furthermore, our analysis would be the same under either parties’ definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“1. “visualization agent” In its Petition, Petitioner proposed interpretations of certain claim terms. Pet. 18–22. The Board determined in its Institution Decision, however, that only the term “visualization agent” required express interpretation. Inst. Dec. 8 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). The Board set forth the broadest reasonable interpretation of “visualization agent” as “an agent that reflects or emits light at a wavelength detectable to a human eye so that a human eye may visualize the hydrogel coating.” Id. at 9. Neither party challenges that interpretation. See, e.g., Third Tr. 6:15–17. We have reassessed that determination in light of the arguments and evidence adduced at trial, and maintain that determination based on the full record.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Id. Here, we determine that the preamble phrase “suitable to coat a tissue of a patient” is not merely a statement of purpose, but instead represents the “essence or a fundamental characteristic of the claimed invention.” Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Vizio, the Federal Circuit held that a preamble reciting “for decoding” certain data “is properly construed as a claim limitation” because the apparatus and method claims reciting that preamble “would have little meaning without the intended objective of decoding.” Id. at 1341. Similarly here, we determine that the method step of claim 1—namely, mixing reactive nucleophilic precursor species, electrophilic precursor species, and a visualization agent—would have little meaning without the intended objective of forming a hydrogel coating on the tissue of a patient. Put differently, there would be no reason to perform the method step of claim 1 but for forming a hydrogel coating on the patient’s tissue. See Ex. 1001, 39:56–40:2 (claim 1) (providing that the reactive precursors crosslink after contact with the tissue to form a hydrogel in the form of a coating). Thus, we determine that “suitable to coat a tissue of a patient” is limiting in this case because it gives “life and meaning” to method claim 1. We further find that the arguments and evidence in this case show that skilled artisans would reasonably interpret “suitable to coat a tissue of a patient” as encompassing a biocompatibility requirement. Although Petitioner correctly notes that “[n]one of challenged claims recite the term ‘biocompatible,” Petitioner acknowledges that skilled artisans understand “that hydrogels are, by their nature as water-swelled materials, known to be biocompatible.” Pet. Suppl. Br. 4–5. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lowman, declared that “biocompatibility is presumed as a fundamental aspect of the claimed and disclosed inventions.” Ex. 2018 ¶ 40. And in his deposition, Dr. Lowman testified that skilled artisans would understand “biocompatible” to mean that the hydrogel composition is “suitable for use and tolerated by a patient.” Ex. 2019, 13:2–11 (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that “suitable to coat a tissue of a patient” reasonably encompasses a biocompatibility requirement for the hydrogel composition. slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Motivation to combine the prior art references and reasonable expectation of success Even “[i]f all elements of the claims are found in a combination of prior art references,” “the factfinder should further consider whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would [have been] motivated to combine those references, and whether in making that combination, a person of ordinary skill would have [had] a reasonable expectation of success.” Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The “motivation to combine” and “reasonable expectation of success” factors are subsidiary requirements for obviousness subsumed within the Graham factors. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,009,034 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,009,034 - Geosys-Intl, Inc. v. Farmers Edge Precision Consulting Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Nov 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00711 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted, and claim 25 was held unpatentable as obvious over Hauwiller, the Background of the ’867 patent, and Shibusawa.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“After considering the arguments in the Request for Rehearing and reconsidering the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that the reasoning in our Final Decision misapprehended what is required by claim 25. Claim 25 does not require satellite imaging to create a map of soil electrical conductivity. Applying this corrected understanding of claim 25, we also now agree that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious in view of Hauwiller, the Background of the ’867 patent, and Shibusawa.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“Applying this corrected understanding of claim 25, we also now agree that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious in view of Hauwiller, the Background of the ’867 patent, and Shibusawa. As summarized above, Petitioner presented evidence that Shibusawa discloses a map of measurements of soil electrical conductivity, and that combining Shibusawa’s teachings with Hauwiller’s system would have been obvious because electrical conductivity testing is a relatively efficient method for determining soil properties. Pet. 45–46; Ex. 1004, 20:11–16, 23:14–17; Ex. 1009 ¶ 80. As Petitioner points out, the subject matter recited in claim 25 is similar to that of claims 7 and 14, and we determined in our Final Decision that Petitioner’s contentions regarding the obviousness of those claims were persuasive. See Req. Reh’g 5; Dec. 39–40.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,343,867 - Geosys-Intl, Inc. v. Farmers Edge Precision Consulting Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Nov 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00709 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing granted; claim 25 held unpatentable as obvious over Hauwiller, the Background of the ’912 patent, and Shibusawa.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“was based on a misapprehension of what is required by claim 25. Req. Reh’g 6. Specifically, Petitioner argues that claim 25 does not require satellite imaging to create a map of soil electrical conductivity. Id. at 1. Petitioner points out that claim 25 requires that the soil electrical conductivity map is used for the calculation of the “site-specific measures of the soil nutrient existing in the field.” Id. at 2. Claim 15 requires that the map of site-specific field characteristic data generated using a satellite image of the agricultural field is used in the calculation of the map of “site-specific soil nutrient amount needed to produce at each site a maximum possible crop yield.” Ex. 1001, 12:7–12. In other words, the map of soil electrical conductivity recited in claim 25 is used in the first calculating step of claim 15, not the second calculating step that uses a map generated through satellite imaging. After considering the arguments in the Request for Rehearing and reconsidering the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that the reasoning in our Final Decision misapprehended what is required by claim 25. Claim 25 does not require satellite imaging to create a map of soil electrical conductivity. Applying this corrected understanding of claim 25, we also agree that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious in view of Hauwiller, the Background of the ’912 patent, and Shibusawa. As summarized above, Petitioner presented evidence that Shibusawa discloses a map of measurements of soil electrical conductivity, and that combining Shibusawa’s teachings with Hauwiller’s system would have been obvious because electrical conductivity testing is a relatively efficient method for determining soil properties. Pet. 47; Ex. 1004, 20:11–16, 23:14–17; Ex. 1009 ¶ 80. As Petitioner points out, the subject matter recited in claim 25 is similar to that of claims 7 and 14, and we determined in our Final Decision that Petitioner’s contentions regarding the obviousness of those claims were persuasive. See Req. Reh’g 5–6; Dec. 34.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“reconsidering the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that the reasoning in our Final Decision misapprehended what is required by claim 25. Claim 25 does not require satellite imaging to create a map of soil electrical conductivity. Applying this corrected understanding of claim 25, we also agree that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious in view of Hauwiller, the Background of the ’912 patent, and Shibusawa. As summarized above, Petitioner presented evidence that Shibusawa discloses a map of measurements of soil electrical conductivity, and that combining Shibusawa’s teachings with Hauwiller’s system would have been obvious because electrical conductivity testing is a relatively efficient method for determining soil properties. Pet. 47; Ex. 1004, 20:11–16, 23:14–17; Ex. 1009 ¶ 80. As Petitioner points out, the subject matter recited in claim 25 is similar to that of claims 7 and 14, and we determined in our Final Decision that Petitioner’s contentions regarding the obviousness of those claims were persuasive. See Req. Reh’g 5–6; Dec. 34.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,171,912 - Geosys-Intl, Inc. v. Farmers Edge Precision Consulting, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 17, 2016 · IPR2015-00708 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the three instituted combinations of Hauwiller, the patent Background, and, for specified claims, Dickson or Shibusawa.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The differences between Dr. Johannsen’s and Dr. Heiniger’s articulations of the level of ordinary skill in the art are fairly minor. Our analysis below, including the conclusions we reach, would be substantially the same under either proposal. Nevertheless, after considering the evidence of record, we adopt Dr. Heiniger’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In the Decision to Institute, we construed the phrase “calculating a map”4 in claims 1–3, 12, 14, 20–22, and 28 to mean “performing calculations to produce a map.” Dec. to Inst. 6–7. With respect to the phrase “maximum possible crop yield” in claims 1, 14, and 20, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed meaning of that term as “yield goal” and instead applied the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language. Id. at 7–8. We further determined that no other claim term required express construction. Id. at 8. Following institution, neither party challenged those constructions or proposed other terms for construction. On the record now before us, we do not discern reason to deviate from the constructions set forth in the Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“a “conventional method” that is used for calculating nitrogen needs for a field. Ex. 1001, 1:39–40. Hauwiller’s system is open to a variety of recommendation equations, as Patent Owner’s declarant agrees. See Ex. 1005, 8:36–48, 9:18–21, 9:34–38, 13:30–35, 13:39–45; Ex. 1020, 8:11–16. This openness supports the obviousness of employing within Hauwiller’s system a conventional equation (or certain aspects of a conventional equation) such as the one set forth in the Background of the ’620 patent. Furthermore, while the conventional equation includes several variables, a basic teaching of the equation is that in calculating the fertilizer recommendation, the amount of nitrogen already present should be subtracted from the nitrogen needed to realize the yield goal. See Ex. 1001, 1:39–50. Dr. Johannsen’s testimony that “subtraction of existing nutrients from the nutrient amount was a conventional thing to do particularly because it helps reduce leaching due to over fertilization” is consistent with this understanding of the conventional equation. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 71. We also recognize that the ’620 patent describes the equation as being a conventional approach for calculating nitrogen needs “for a field” rather than for a specific site within the field. Ex. 1001, 1:39–40. But Hauwiller recognizes that “[d]esired yield potential varies depending upon the soil characteristics by location” and, for that reason, describes the desirability of constructing “a yield goal map for creating an application map based upon site specific yield goals.” Ex. 1005, 9:32–41 (emphasis added). Thus, Hauwiller teaches the advantages and desirability of a site-specific approach. We agree with Petitioner that the “subtracting” step would have been accomplished by applying the teachings of the equation in the Background of the ’620 patent to the site-specific approach of Hauwiller. The evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions summarized above, and we agree with Petitioner that all of the features of claims 1 and 20 are disclosed in Hauwiller and the prior art described in the Background of the ’620 patent, and that there is adequate reason to combine the teachings of the prior art. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, but we do not find them persuasive for the reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered Patent Owner’s and Dr. Heiniger’s opposing views. We observe that Dr. Heiniger does not explain adequately the basis of his opinion that, despite the teachings of the prior art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “thought that yield data from previous years would not work for that purpose” because a skilled artisan would have viewed yield data as “fundamentally different” from a measure of biomass. See Ex. 2033 ¶ 167. We also do not discern that either Patent Owner or Dr. Heiniger adequately considers that, in view of the teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “leaf area index” is a known measure of biomass. See Ex. 1001, 1:63–65. In that regard, they do not explain why a skilled artisan would not understand readily that leaf area index constitutes the type of field history data and previous crop information that Hauwiller contemplates as useful in developing a map for a given field. Accordingly, on the record before us, we conclude that Petition has shown where all the features of claims 2 and 21 are found in the prior art, and that there is articulated reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hauwiller and the Background of the ’620 patent. Patent Owner’s and Dr. Heiniger’s general views to the contrary, in our view, do not account appropriately for how a skilled artisan would have understood the teachings of the prior art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 6,889,620 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,889,620 - Unverferth Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. J&M Manufacturing Co., Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2015 · IPR2014-00758 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Grieshop, Christianson, and Parker.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We have carefully considered both positions, but find Mr. Kucklick’s testimony to be more persuasive. We are not persuaded by Mr. Smith’s position that Grieshop and Christianson are “completely” or “entirely” different. Given the field of the invention, bulk handling of farm products, and the fact that each is a grain handler, we find that they are in the same field of endeavor and also logically would commend themselves to the attention of the skilled artisan at the time the invention was made. For example, Grieshop describes “[a] wagon for transporting grain and other particulate matter” (Ex. 1002, Abst.) and Christianson notes in its Background section that “grain handling equipment commonly makes use of vertically extending tubing to elevate and direct grain into a truck or grain bin.” Ex. 1003, 1:19–22. Although we do not wish to understate the engineering work required on the part of Mr. Wood, replacing the non-askewed hinge with an askewed hinge was known in the art, even if Mr. Wood was unaware of it at the time. We find that askewed hinging was known in the field of grain carts. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 (depicting a Par-Kan grain cart with an askewed hinge). We juxtapose the hinge of Figure 7 of the instant patent (rotated 90 degrees) with that of prior art Par-Kan grain cart (Ex. 1007), known as early as 2006, below.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We have carefully considered both positions, but find Mr. Kucklick’s testimony to be more persuasive. We are not persuaded by Mr. Smith’s position that Grieshop and Christianson are “completely” or “entirely” different. Given the field of the invention, bulk handling of farm products, and the fact that each is a grain handler, we find that they are in the same field of endeavor and also logically would commend themselves to the attention of the skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s observation about the Grieshop patent, which expired in 2008, has some merit. It seems evident that farm equipment manufacturers will enforce their patents from time to time, so it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of the Grieshop patent could have had a chilling effect on development. See, e.g., Ex. 1016, 47:19–49:15. In particular, the following testimony is pertinent to this issue: Q. And do you remember approximately when J & M asserted the '208 Patent against these companies? A. It would be in the early '90s. Q. So shortly after the patent issued, they would have asserted the patent against these companies -- A. Correct. Q. -- is that fair to say? A. Correct. Q. And is it your understanding that these efforts to enforce the '208 patent against these competitors resulted in those competitors taking front fold single auger grain carts off the market?” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that these items provide the requisite nexus to the instant claims. Although Patent Owner characterizes the hinge structure as “slightly different,” the provisional applications reference an “offset angle” for the conveyor sections. Exs. 200809. We are not provided with any persuasive explanation about how the hinge would fall within the claimed subject matter. The same is true of the advertising material. As a consequence, we find this position and evidence unpersuasive. Patent Owner’s Efforts Patent Owner turns to its efforts to develop an acceptable solution.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,585,343 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,585,343 - Merial Limited v. VirbacRehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 15, 2015 · IPR2014-01279 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted and review instituted on claims 1–15 under § 103 over Huet ’333 combined with Saito and over Huet ’333 combined with Sirinyan.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“We agree with Petitioner that we overlooked the significance of that portion of Huet ʼ333 indicating that use of a cosolvent is optional. Upon consideration of the Petition for Rehearing1 and the Response, we grant the Petition for Rehearing and order institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“solvent must include any C1-C4 alcohol. The cosolvent, which can be absolute ethanol, isopropanol, or methanol (Ex. 1005, 6:19–20), is optional (Ex. 1005, 10:45).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“We recognize in circumstances similar to those present in this case that it often is questioned why one skilled in the art would “pick and choose” particular ingredients (solvents and crystallization inhibitors in this case) where a reference describes several alternatives. There is an answer. First, the entire disclosure of Huet ʼ333 is in the public domain. One skilled in the art should be free to use any combination described by Huet ʼ333 in proportions that Huet ʼ333 characterizes as being within the skill of the art. Claim 1 of the ’799 patent presumptively removes from that public domain a portion of what is described by Huet ʼ333. Absent some unexpected result obtained by the subgenus of claim 1 of the ʼ799 patent vis-à-vis the broader genus described by Huet ʼ333, it is likely that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ799 patent would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Patent Owner, in responding on the merits, is free to present evidence of unexpected results.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,501,799
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.