- CMS Cepcor Ltd. / CMS Cepcor Americas LLC v. Sandvik Intellectual Property ABNo claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,014,090 - PTAB · Mar 25, 2026 · IPR2024-01380 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–10 and granted substitute claims 11–19 because Petitioner did not prove claim 11 obvious over Torrence and Piepho.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportGranted
“relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Id. “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. “In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Ind. Co., Ltd. v/ Int’l Trade Com’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.” Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Further, inventions in the mechanical and electrical-based arts usually involve predictable factors and can be more predictable than other fields, such as chemistry and biology. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970);” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. 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 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: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary 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 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“[c]ombin[e] the tapered region of Piepho with the shaft of Torrence, the tapered region would extend from an uppermost extremity of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 9. But, Petitioner concedes that neither reference discloses a tapered region extending from the uppermost extremity. Petitioner argues that Torrence’s shaft is straight (Amended RMTA Sur-reply 9) and that “[t]he tapered region of Piepho does not extend to the extreme end of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 11 (emphasis added). Because neither Torrence nor Piepho discloses a shaft with a tapered region that “extends from an uppermost extremity of the shaft,” we find that the combination of Torrence and Piepho does not teach limitation 11[a]. We now analyze whether Petitioner provides reasoning with a rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Torrence with Piepho to extend Torrence’s taper from the upper extremity of its shaft. slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,827,568 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 based on a reasonable likelihood that the Polinski, Piepho, and Harless combination renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Under § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the challenged claims in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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 also 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. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of its Preliminary Response, it “does not object to Petitioner’s position on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). At this stage, and based on Petitioner’s undisputed contentions, we view Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’090 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner argues that “[n]o terms need construction because the claims read on the prior art identified below under any construction consistent with Phillips.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner “submits that the Board need not construe any claim terms as the claims are patentable under any reasonable construction.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s combination of Polinski and Piepho, but instead argues that no motivation to combine exists because Harless “would render both Polinski and Piepho inoperable for their intended purpose of preventing shaft failure.” Prelim. Resp. 22–31 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). When addressing intended purpose, Patent Owner argues that “Polinski mitigates shaft fatigue failure . . . specifically by omitting threads that are typically cut into gyratory shafts to attach a crusher mantle.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:61–67). Patent Owner asserts that Polinski instead teaches that shaft stress can be reduced “by cutting threads into a bearing sleeve.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:1–67). Piepho, according to Patent Owner, seeks a similar goal: “to prevent fretting wear and corresponding fatigue,” by “coating a portion of the shaft fit into a yoke bushing (which Petitioner alleges is a sleeve) with a ceramic coating.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:15–25; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–43). Patent Owner argues that introducing Harless’s groove onto the main shaft would undermine the purposes of Piepho and Polinski because these would “introduce stress concentrations,” “lead to increased fretting wear,” and “increase the likelihood of fatigue failure.” Id. at 24–29. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s approach relies on impermissible hindsight because one of ordinary skill would not seek to rely on Harless’s grooved shaft for use in “mounting of gears and similar components” rather than “for crushing applications, much less in a gyratory crusher, as claimed.” Id. at 30. According to Patent Owner, Harless fails to disclose “that its shaft is subjected to the same substantial stresses generated by the cyclic loading as the shafts disclosed by Polinski and Piepho.” Id. As to Petitioner’s argument that a POSITA would be motivated to make the combination to simplify the equipment and process for interference fits, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner impermissibly picks and chooses aspects of the three references” and ignores what they teach to a POSITA, namely that “Polinski and Piepho are both directed to mitigating shaft fatigue” and adding Harless’s oil groove introduces several problems, as noted above. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piepho, Polinski, and Harless in the manner Petitioner proposes. Notably, Patent Owner does not directly contest Petitioner’s stated reasons why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed combination, i.e., that the combination would save money and simplify the equipment and process for making and breaking interference fits. See Pet. 19–21; Prelim. Resp. 22–31. Patent Owner instead suggests that Petitioner improperly ignores disadvantages when adding Harless’s groove to Polinski and Piepho, which at best suggests a weighing between the advantages Petitioner contends the addition of Harless’s groove provides and the alleged disadvantages. See Prelim. Resp. 22–31. While Patent Owner’s arguments may ultimately prevail, given the highly factual nature of the competing expert testimony and the weighing necessary to resolve this issue, we view the issues as best resolved after further development during trial and after Petitioner has the opportunity to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence. On this record and at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s arguments and supportive declarant testimony adequately establishes a motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,014,090 - Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Feb 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01312 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 16, 17, and 19-21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Lundahl and Larsen.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“justification for requiring a POSITA to have both an engineering degree and a medical degree. We agree, insofar as Petitioner has not clearly set out any particular explanation or evidence in support of its dual-degree requirement. In all other respects, we note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. Because we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed definition is reasonable and consistent with the ’028 patent and the cited art, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. In any event, our decision whether to institute does not turn on this level of skill determination.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b); 37 C.F.R. § 100(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner and Patent Owner assert that the Board need not construe any claims for the purpose of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 24. We agree.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Based on our review of the Petition, Petitioner explains that a driving motivation for a POSITA to modify Lundahl to include Larsen’s five panels is “to increase the flexibility of the device to ensure the light panels could be maintained at a distance of 2-4′′ from surface of the treatment area, whether the face, arm, or back, etc.” Pet. 29 (emphasis added). As Lundahl’s device is not flexible, and such flexibility would improve its ability to treat areas other than an average sized face, we determine, at this stage in the proceeding, that this motivation for the combination is sufficient.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightInstituted
“would have been motivated to modify Lundahl’s device by incorporating Larsen’s use of LEDs on the surface of the light applicators in place of Lundahl’s fluorescent tubes with a reasonable expectation of success. Prelim. Resp. 55. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s modification is based on improper hindsight bias because “Petitioner cherry-picks Larsen’s LEDs (together with the five panels) and purports to arrange them according to the [sic] ‘the uneven spacing’ of Lundahl’s fluorescent tubes.” Id. at 56 (citing Pet. 46–49; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 175–80). According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner cannot on the one hand argue that a ‘POSITA would have understood that Larsen’s applicator is configured to uniformly illuminate a treatment surface of the patient,’ while on the other ignore Larsen’s teaching that the ‘light sources 17 are placed in regular row arrangements.’” Id. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s proposed modification “mish-mashes aspects of Lundahl and Larsen ([while] avoiding the overall teachings of [challenged] claims.” Id. at 56–57. As discussed above, based on our consideration of the current record, Petitioner has provided sufficient motivation for employing Larsen’s flexible five panel configuration. These panels in Larsen already use LEDs as their light source. So, in our view, Petitioner’s incorporation of the five panels includes the lighting source, i.e., LEDs, for those panels taught by Larsen. Further, we note that Petitioner has persuasively asserted that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Larsen’s LEDs as they are more cost-efficient and last longer. See Pet. 31.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,028 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01211 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 18–47 and 53–74 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–25, 27, and 29–33 are obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition … and any 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). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all of the claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill of the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that the open-ended language ‘at least’ expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby also encompassing those of extraordinary skill as well. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 120 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). We agree with Petitioner that, on the record presently before us, no claim term requires express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues that, in view of these teachings in Racz and Lee, a skilled artisan would have found implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38) to be a routine engineering task. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the arts would have recognized that it would be appropriate to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) without including Lee’s central filament. Id. Petitioner asserts that Lee discloses that any number and arrangement of filaments may be implemented to provide a desired ablation volume. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 103, 105, 106). Additionally, Petitioner argues, because Racz’s tip (14/38) is already active, a skilled artisan would have recognized that Lee’s central filament would not be necessary. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, col. 3, ll. 60–63, col. 4, ll. 18–23; Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). Petitioner therefore argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter deployable filaments (22/1622) on the distal tip (14/38) of Racz’s cannula (10/33) for the purpose of expanding and controlling the energy coverage area of Racz’s device. Pet. 40. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) around Racz’s tip (14/38) to provide a desired ablation volume (e.g., in a full or partial “cone” shape) and omit Lee’s central filament. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 179, 73–75, 79–83). Petitioner contends that, as both Lee and Fitz confirm, this would improve Racz’s device by providing an expanded and controlled energy coverage area. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9–10, Abstr.; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12, 84, 123–131; Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). Petitioner argues further that, in implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s tip (14/38) to include internal deflection surfaces (12/1612) (e.g., channels and ramps as disclosed in Lee) to guide the perimeter filaments (22/1622) outwardly around Racz’s tip (14/38). Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 18, 92, 102, claims 8, 10; Ex. 1033 ¶ 180). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to provide openings in Racz’s distal tip (14/38) (e.g., in communication the internal deflection surfaces as disclosed in Lee) such that Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) can, when deployed, exit Racz’s distal tip (14/38). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 92, 102; Ex. 1033 ¶ 180). Furthermore, argues Petitioner, and to preserve the functionality of Racz’s removable electrical probe (22/52) and active tip (14/38) (and consistent with Lee’s teachings) a skilled artisan would have arranged the perimeter filaments, channels, and ramps around the internal perimeter of Racz’s cannula (10/33). Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 91, 92, 98, 102; Ex. 1033 ¶ 181). Petitioner recapitulates that Racz’s probe (22/52) is configured to extend the full length of the cannula’s shaft (12/34) to supply RF energy to the tip (14/38) and measure tissue temperature. Pet. 42. According to Petitioner, by omitting Lee’s central filament and arranging the perimeter filaments, channels, and ramps around the inner perimeter of Racz’s cannula (10/33), a skilled artisan could have implemented Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) without obstructing Racz’s cannula (10/33). Id. at 40. Petitioner contends that this modification would preserve the functionality of Racz’s electrical probe (22/52), which is needed to transmit RF energy. Id. (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 181–182).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,736,688 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01210 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17 and 48–52 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition … and any 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). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all of the claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill of the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that the open-ended language ‘at least’ expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby also encompassing those of extraordinary skill as well. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶ 120 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). We agree with Petitioner that, on the record presently before us, no claim term requires express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter deployable filaments (22/1622) on the distal tip (14/38) of Racz’s cannula (10/33) for the purpose of expanding and controlling the energy coverage area of Racz’s device. Pet. 35. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) around Racz’s tip (14/38) to provide a desired ablation volume (e.g., in a full or partial “cone” shape) and omit Lee’s central filament. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 179, 73–75, 79–83). Petitioner contends that, as both Lee and Fitz confirm, this would improve Racz’s device by providing an expanded and controlled energy coverage area. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9–10, Abstr.; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12, 84, 123–131; Ex. 1032 ¶ 179). Petitioner argues further that, in implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s tip (14/38) to include internal deflection surfaces (12/1612) (e.g., channels and ramps as disclosed in Lee) to guide the perimeter filaments (22/1622) outwardly around Racz’s tip (14/38). Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 18, 92, 102, claims 8, 10; Ex. 1032 ¶ 180). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to provide openings in Racz’s distal tip (14/38) (e.g., in communication the internal deflection surfaces as disclosed in Lee) such that Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) can, when deployed, exit Racz’s distal tip (14/38). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 92, 102; Ex. 1032 ¶ 180).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,736,688 - A&A Global Imports, Inc. v. Lerman Container CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01138 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the single claim would have been obvious over any of the four asserted reference combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of the ’151 patent’s claim. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner submits that a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Industrial Design, Mechanical Engineering, or related field and approximately 5 years of professional experience in the field designing consumer products.” Pet. 42 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 48). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. Prelim. Resp. 19. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposal regarding a designer of ordinary skill in the art. See Fletcher Decl. ¶ 48; Rake Decl. ¶ 29.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and Petitioner’s failure to persuasively explain why the particular proportion depicted in the ’151 patent is preferable to any other, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that this proportion is primarily functional and should not be considered as part of the ornamental design. See, e.g., LA Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.”). Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that the differences in proportion between Neutrogena and the claimed design contribute significantly to the overall visual impression of the design. See Prelim. Resp. 28 (“[T]he two designs considered as a whole present dramatically different visual appearances.”), 33–36 (“To get from the Neutrogena jar design . . . to the design of the D ‘151 patent would require entirely changing the proportions of the jar—from a short neck with a tall base to a tall neck with a short base . . . .”). For example, Patent Owner creates an image showing that simply changing the height of the Neutrogena jar neck to have the same neck-height to base-height ratio as the ’151 patent without changing the other dimensions of the jar would yield a “ridiculous result.” Id. at 37. We agree that the two images, reproduced below, do not convey the same overall visual impression. This figure contains two images side by side. On the left is a side view drawing of the claimed jar. On the right is a front side image of the Neutrogena jar with the image manipulated to show a neck to base proportion equivalent to that of the claimed jar drawing. Prelim. Resp. 38. The images above show a figure from the ’151 patent, above left, and Patent Owner’s created image of Neutrogena, above right, with only the neck height modified to match the proportion of neck to base height shown in the ’151 patent. Although we do not necessarily agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the created Neutrogena image represents the proposed combination asserted in the Petition, or that the modified image created by Patent Owner is accurate, we do agree with Patent Owner that the image of the modified Neutrogena jar illustrates that the proportion of neck height to base height contributes to ornamental aspects of the claimed jar and significantly affects the overall visual impression.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We find these aspects of the design significantly affect the overall visual impression of an otherwise simple design, particularly in an otherwise crowded art. Petitioner addresses these differences by stating that a designer of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that different degrees of radius for the concave bottom surface would be a design choice for volume and accessibility to the contents, especially together with the radiused transition between the sidewall and bottom surface.” Pet. 56 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 98). However, the present record does not support a finding that, even though other interior compartment shapes and depths are available, functionality dictates a certain shape and depth. Petitioner cites no other prior art that shows an interior compartment with a shape and depth equivalent to that shown in the ’151 patent. See Pet. 28–29 (showing annotated versions of Huang’s drawings, which do not clearly show the shape or depth of the interior compartment), 63 (proposing to modify Huang’s two chamber interior compartment with that of Canamasas Puigbo), 85–88 (showing the McKernan Jar drawings, which do not indicate the shape or depth of the interior compartment); Ex. 2002, 13 (explaining that the interior of Zamberlan is different in shape and depth than the claimed design). We are not persuaded to the contrary by Petitioner’s expert testimony. Mr. Fletcher testifies that Canamasas Puigbo “explicitly discloses a concave bottom surface in an article having more visually similar design, which would provide ample motivation to incorporate the feature.” Fletcher Decl. ¶ 98 (emphasis added). Thus, Mr. Fletcher appears to agree that the shape of the Canamasas Puigbo’s internal compartment is noticeably different than that of the ’151 patent. Mr. Fletcher does not address why a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have overlooked these differences or found them so minimal as to not affect the overall impression of the resulting modified jar. For example, Mr. Fletcher does not support this conclusion with any objective evidence, such as pointing to other prior art with an interior compartment the same shape and depth as that of the ’151 patent. Nor does Mr. Fletcher otherwise explain why a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to use the particular shape and depth claimed by the ’151 patent as opposed to all other possible configurations. See, id. ¶¶ 83–101. Moreover, as noted above, “expert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications.” 2019 Trial Practice Guide at 36. Accordingly, even after combining the visual features of Neutrogena and Canamasas Puigbo as proposed by Petitioner, the record evidence does not support Petitioner’s assertion that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Neutrogena such that its internal compartment is the same shape and depth as claimed by the ’151 patent.” slip op. at 32
§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01156 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–30 on all grounds, finding it more likely than not that the claims are unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of any of the claim terms and neither party identifies a claim construction that would impact our analysis. We therefore find that, at this stage of the proceeding, there are no terms that need claim construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts (without opposition): A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of invention would have a working knowledge of microbiology and would have been involved in developing testing methodologies for analysis of samples such as food products (“validation methodologies”). The POSA would most likely have an advanced degree in microbiology, food science, or animal science and at least two years of work experience but may alternatively have a bachelor’s degree in those areas and at least four years of experience with validation methodologies. The POSA would have been familiar with relevant scientific literature and industry regulations, directives, and guidelines relating to validation methodologies.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Determining whether claims are anticipated involves a two-step analysis. The first step involves construction of the claims of the patent at issue. Claim construction is a question of law reviewed de novo.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed.Cir.2011). “The second step [of an anticipation analysis] involves comparing the claims to the prior art. Anticipation is a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1296. “A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reference may anticipate inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed “is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“The motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one. “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed,” [but the] “analysis ‘need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’” Intel Corp. v. PACT XXP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 420 (emphasis added)). “[I]f there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine,” because KSR explains that “if a technique has been used to improve one device [or method], and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices [or methods] in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 1380 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; and Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). If addressing a known problem, the prior art combination need not be “the best option, only . . . a suitable option.” Id. (quoting Intel, 21 F.4th at 800 (emphasis original)).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,845,486 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00185 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 11, 12, 14–20, 22–24, 26, and 29–36 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one challenged claim of the ’143 Patent is unpatentable. In particular, because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is rendered obvious by the asserted combinations of ICMSF, Hughes, and Price, we institute inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition. At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim or the construction of any claim term. Thus, our view with regard to any conclusion reached in the foregoing could change upon consideration of Patent Owner’s merits response and completion of the record.” slip op. at 54
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “lots” does not require construction because on the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of the term, and neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identify any way that claim construction may impact our decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We also agree with Patent Owner that the ’143 patent provides definitions that guide the understanding of the term “lots” including teaching: The term “test lot” or “reportable lot” as used herein to refer to an assemblage of one or more specimens of a medium or process (e.g. assemblage of specimens of air, water, solids or of product of a production process, etc.) where such assemblage can be sampled by taking portions of the one or more specimens thereof, and where the one or more specimens of the assemblage are operationally linked in a manner (e.g. proximity, time, process step, etc.) whereby information derived about sampled portions is operationally applicable to all specimens of the assemblage, and thus to the test lot. In particular instances, portions are synonymous with specimens. Ex. 1002, 5:34–45. The Specification similarly provides definitions for “product portion,” “test lot sample,” and “single-unit production lot” that provide significant guidance and clarity as to the meaning of these terms. Id. at 5:52–63, 6:2–20.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“validation” as used herein with respect to production lots refers to determining that a particular sample tests negative using the detection assay. Where a modular composite sample tests negative, all single-unit production lot samples comprising the composite sample are validated along with the respective single-unit production lots, which are thus cleared for release. Where a modular composite sample tests positive, individual single unit production lots may nonetheless yet be validated if particular respective single-unit production lot samples test negative. Ex.1002, 7:15–24 (emphasis added). The above text expressly equates “validation” to a determination that “a particular sample tests negative.” The initial definitional sentence makes no mention of “cleared for release” as necessary for “validation.” The subsequent sentence refers to “cleared for release” in the more limited situation where a particular composite sample “tests negative all single-unit production lot samples,” and, even then, the “cleared for release” language indicates a separate step that may happen after the samples are “validated.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“On the current record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has insufficiently articulated a motivation to combine or modify the asserted references. With respect to Ground 1, for example, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify ICMSF based on Gombas under the teaching-suggestion-motivation test so portions of the enriched, retained samples are further tested after a positive test of a composite sample by the same protocol, with a reasonable expectation of success for efficient validation. See § XII-A-1-h supra; Dickson ¶¶ 417-19. Pet. 53–54. Petitioner further argues that ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to improve[] ICMSF with the similar methods of Gombas to yield efficient validation, which is a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In this combination, a POSA would have simply substituted steps of ICMSF, as described above, with those of Gombas so portions of the enrichment cultures are retained and are further tested after a positive test of a composite sample by the same protocol for predictably efficient validation. MPEP § 2143(I)(B); Dickson ¶ 420. Id. at 53. As such, the Petition provides specific reasons to combine ICMSF and Gombas that are consistent with the flexible test recited in KSR, including the benefit of efficient validation of the test and that the combination is a simple substitution of steps. As KSR notes, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 US at 417. Here, Petitioner has made its reasons to combine explicit. See Pet. 53–” slip op. at 47
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,822,143 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00183 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 10, 11, 13–20, 22, 23, and 26–33 because the asserted combinations of ICMSF, Hughes, and Price showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’584 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’584 patent on the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (POSA/POSITA), “would most likely have an advanced degree in microbiology, food science, or animal science and at least two years of work experience but may alternatively have a bachelor’s degree in those areas and at least four years of experience with validation methodologies.” Pet. 11. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a working knowledge of microbiology,” “would have been involved in developing sampling and testing methodologies for analysis of food products (“validation methodologies”),” and “would have been familiar with relevant scientific literature and industry regulations, directives, and guidelines relating to validation methodologies.” Id.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “lots” does not require construction because on the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of the term, and neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identify any way that claim construction impacts the decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“This definition requires that a “validation” determines that “a particular sample tests negative.” The initial definition sentence makes no mention of “cleared for release” as necessary for “validation.” Rather, the definition only refers to “cleared for release” in the more limited situation where a particular composite sample “tests negative all single-unit production lot samples,” and even then, the “cleared for release” is a separate step that occurs after the samples are “validated.”” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,534,584
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.