• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00744 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, and 12–14 were not shown unpatentable because Halbert did not disclose the claimed ranks operating at the specified data rate.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not provide a different assessment of the level of ordinary skill, but Dr. Przybylski states that an individual with the level of experience identified by Petitioner “would have less knowledge and familiarity” than presumed by Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. Dr. Przybylski, however, provides no further discussion explaining this apparent disagreement with Petitioner, nor does he set forth what level of knowledge and familiarity a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. Based on the complete trial record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed skill level is consistent with the level of ordinary skill evidenced by the ’314 patent and the asserted prior art, and we adopt that skill level with the exception of the phrases “at least,” which introduce vagueness as to the amount of experience.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s interpretation. Taking Petitioner’s point that “‘specified data rate’ means only that the data rate is specified in some way” (Pet. Reply 4), we do not see how, once the rate is specified, claim 1’s later recitations of “the specified data rate” could refer to any other rate, as Petitioner’s arguments suggest. Petitioner argues that “it is clear that the ‘specified data rate’ that provides antecedent basis for later recitations of that term is merely the data rate specified for ‘communicat[ing] data’ between the ‘memory module’ and the external ‘memory controller of the computer (alteration by Petitioner). We agree with this statement, and later recitations of “the specified data rate,” therefore, refer to the data rate that is so specified. Petitioner provides no persuasive argument to support its position that later recitations of “the specified data rate” could be satisfied by data rates that are not the “specified data rate.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “PO Resp. 19; see also Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 68–72 (Dr. Przybylski’s testimony explaining this annotated figure). Halbert’s Figure 5 is a timing diagram for two consecutive read operations (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16, 37), and Patent Owner includes annotations to show each of ranks 140 and 142 outputting data onto their respective data busses at half the rate that data are output from data interface circuit 120 on the DQ data line. In particular, Halbert explains that each of ranks 140 and 142 is “capable of performing m-bit-wide data transfers.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 30. On a read command, rank 140 sends m-bit-wide data to bi-directional data register 126 on line RDQ0 at the same time that rank 142 sends m-bit-wide data to bi-directional data register 128 on line RDQ1, as shown in Figure 5 between T7n and T8n. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 31–32, 39. Halbert discloses that register 126 or from register 128 to output to buffer 122, which are then output on line DQ. Ex. 1005 ¶ 33. Halbert explains that “[d]ata is serialized from the data registers onto the memory data bus by reading 2m bits into the data registers during one memory device read cycle, and then driving these bits, m at a time, through MUX 124.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 33. As shown in Halbert’s Figure 5, over one clock cycle (T7n–T8n), each of ranks 140 and 142 outputs one piece of m-bit-wide data, and over one clock cycle (T8–T9), those two pieces of m-bit-wide data are output on line DQ to the system memory data bus. Halbert explains that the second read operation proceeds in the same fashion as the first and that “[t]he net result is that the memory data bus transfers 4m bits of data in two memory bus clock cycles (four mbit transfers), with only two data accesses performed at each memory device on the module.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 42. Thus, Halbert’s memory module outputs data to the system memory data bus at twice the rate that each of ranks 140 and 142 outputs data. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 68–73 (Dr. Przybylski’s credible testimony explaining Halbert’s data rates).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,489,314 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,489,314
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00745 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–20 and 22–33 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not adequately explain how the proposed combination would use active and non-active chip select signals.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have been someone with an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering and at least two years working in the field, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and at least three years working the field,” and Petitioner identifies particular knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52).” slip op. at 5

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

    “C. Claim Construction We need not construe expressly any claim terms to decide the issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6

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

    “As outlined above, Petitioner presents reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have included chip select signals in Halbert’s Figure 4 device. See Pet. 20–31 (addressing limitations 15.4 and 15.5). But Petitioner’s contentions about the use of chip select signals do not address sufficiently how Halbert’s Figure 4 device would operate with active and non-active chip select signals, as recited in claim 15. Indeed, as Patent Owner points out (PO Resp. 12), Petitioner’s contentions for limitation 15.6 only rely on Halbert’s Figure 2 prior art device. See Pet. 31–32. Petitioner’s lack of explanation as to how active and non-active signals would affect the operation of Halbert’s Figure 4 device is significant, as explained below.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,489,314 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,489,314
• Guardant Health, Inc. v. University Of WashingtonNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00817 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 were not proven unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a reason to combine the Travers references with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art by March 20, 2012 would typically have an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., with research experience in genomics, molecular biology, bioinformatics, or a related field, or could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46–47). Patent Owner states that for the purposes of this proceeding, it does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the skill level. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 28–30). After reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languagePlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that, in a few instances, the ’127 patent discloses “sequence reads” as corresponding to “multiple and distinct sequencing reactions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:12–18, 4:45–49, 9:5–9, 9:11–12). Those disclosures, however, relate to “only one method for making the invention and do[] not automatically lead to finding a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Patent Owner does not point to, and we cannot find, any intrinsic evidence that would limit “sequence reads” as Patent Owner contends. Patent Owner also relies on Travers as extrinsic evidence that supports its argument. PO Resp. 9. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that Travers “refers to the sense and antisense target DNA sequences as subreads, which are distinct from the ‘raw read sequence’ or ‘raw read’ that comprises all of the subreads physically linked together.” Id. (citing Ex. 1021, 2). Patent Owner, however, ignores that Travers ’075 refers to the sequence of a sense or antisense strand as a “sequence read,” and not a subread. See Ex. 1018 ¶ 61. As a result, we find insufficient evidence to support Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “sequence read” as requiring “multiple and distinct sequencing reactions.”7 Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Based on the complete record, we see no need to expressly address any other claim term.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. First, the prior art references Petitioner relies on relate to sequencing SMRTbell templates; specifically, they teach two polymerase binding sites in the two hairpin adapters per SMRTbell molecule, one on each end of the target molecule. See Ex. 1021, Fig. 1. They do not speak to concatemers with multiple polymerase binding sites interspersed along the molecule. Second, as explained above, a two-round RCR already generates three polymerase binding sites. See Ex. 2014 ¶ 178. Thus, even if we were to agree with Petitioner that the optimal stoichiometric ratio for SMRTbell templates applies to RCR produced concatemers, the polymerase to concatemer template ratio is at least three, i.e., 50% higher than the number Petitioner points to.11 See Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1035, 34). 11 The product of one round of RCR replication has only two polymerase binding sites. But, with only one copy of A and A each, it would not satisfy Third, and most importantly, the prior art does not support Petitioner’s arguments. The SMRT sequencing “approach is based on eavesdropping on a single DNA polymerase molecule working in a continuous, processive manner.” Ex. 2021, 1 (“Within each [ZMW] chamber, a single DNA polymerase molecule is attached to the bottom surface.”). Indeed, in SMRT sequencing, polymerase molecules are randomly distributed among the ZMWs, leading to a Poisson distribution of occupancy. At optimal loading, the distribution is 36.8% empty ZMWs, 36.8% with just one polymerase, and 26.4% with two or more. In this experiment, ~35% of the ZMWs produced traces indicative of single DNA polymerase occupancy, of which 82% produced full-length reads.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “3. Summary In sum, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to sequence RCR replicated concatemers on PacBio’s sequencing platform with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, Petitioner has not shown the Travers references render the claims 1–10, 12, and 15–28 obvious.12 F. Other Grounds Claim 11 depends from claim 1. Petitioner asserts that claim 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Travers ’075, Travers 2010, and NEB Expressions. Pet. 58–60. 12 The parties dispute whether there are objective indicia to support a conclusion of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 68–74; Reply 23–27; Sur-reply 27–29. We do not address this issue because we determine Petitioner has not met its burden in showing the reason to combine/modify the Travers references or the reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,760,127 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,760,127
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00556 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach or suggest the limitation requiring no outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. Consequently, and according to the plain and ordinary meaning, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, 29 such as a cloth, fabric or other material, that covers all, or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, and specifically “between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame,” we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the spaces between those struts and members. Consequently, the ordinary and customary meaning of the limitation “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” is that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 29

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

    “As an initial matter, there is little disagreement between the parties and their experts that PET can be a graft covering. However, the disputed limitation requires something more. Specifically, it requires that “the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.” We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence of record, that Levi, Spenser II, or Walther, upon which Petitioner relies, teaches or suggests the incorporated limitation of claim 1 reciting “wherein the valve assembly is free of an outer graft covering between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame.” In our analysis, we must first determine what is meant by the claim term “outer graft covering.”” slip op. at 29

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

    “Furthermore, our understanding of an outer graft covering as a material or structure that covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering, reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by challenged claim 1. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met 35 its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 10,987,236 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,987,236
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00291 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 15–17 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not disclose the construed network-based portal residing on a server side of a network.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “network-based portal” as recited in the challenged claims is sufficiently broad to encompass residing at either a client or server side of a network, as Petitioner contends, or is limited to residing at the server side, as Patent Owner contends. On the preliminary record, we declined to adopt Patent Owner’s exclusion of residing at a client side when extending our invitation to the parties to elaborate on their positions. Dec. 11. But we are mindful that “the Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced its initial inclinations were wrong.” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 1 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 19:63, 20:4, 20:6, 20:11, 20:15–16, 20:21–22, 20:29–30, 20:42–43, 20:46–47; see PO Resp. 19 (Patent Owner contending that, because of the repeated recitation of “network-based portal” throughout the body of independent claim 1, the “preamble therefore breath[e]s life and meaning into claim 1”). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects multiple users to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 36. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing applies to the claims that depend from claim 1 because they inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we also conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 2–5, 15, or 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis; that any of claims 7–9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Loveland; nor that” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 10,708,727 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,708,727
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00202 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness grounds did not show a network-based portal residing on the server side of a network.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). Our evaluation also necessarily remains cognizant that “[i]n an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic 3 Petitioner filed a second Declaration by Dr. Almeroth after institution (such that it was not available on the preliminary record), but that Declaration is provided primarily as supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to address objections by Patent Owner to the authenticity of various other exhibits. Ex. 1038 ¶ 2. Dr. Almeroth’s second Declaration otherwise merely incorporates Dr. Almeroth’s “technical opinions” by reference to his first Declaration, without providing any further facts or expressing any further opinions that bear on the merits, including claim construction. Id. ¶ 1. Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 24. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–75. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 1 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 20:3, 20:11, 20:20, 20:23, 20:29, 20:31, 20:48, 20:54; see PO Resp. 19 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 1). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects clients to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 34. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 11 and 19. See Pet. 55–57 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 11 relying substantially on analysis of claim 1), 59–60 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 19 relying substantially on analysis of claim 1). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 1– 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,142,810 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,142,810
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00295 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33–67 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed server-side network-based portal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The issue before us is therefore well-defined, namely whether a “network-based portal” as recited in the challenged claims is sufficiently broad to encompass residing at either a client or server side of a network, as Petitioner contends, or is limited to residing at the server side, as Patent Owner contends. On the preliminary record, we declined to adopt Patent Owner’s exclusion of residing at a client side when extending our invitation to the parties to elaborate on their positions. Dec. 23–25. But we are mindful that “the Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if” slip op. at 14

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

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 7 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 21:53, 21:58, 22:2, 22:14–15, 22:19, 22:20–21, 22:27, 22:33, 22:38–39; see PO Resp. 28 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 7). Under our adopted construction, Petitioner does not show that the combination of Tanigawa and Hullfish meets the claim requirements of a “network-based portal.” That is, Petitioner’s reliance on a client-resident interface to meet the claim’s recitation of a “network-based portal” is incompatible with our construction of that phrase. We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa and Hullfish. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 38 and 46. See Pet. 64 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 38 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7), 65–67 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 46 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 7, 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 38–41, 46, 49, 51–53, 55, 57, 58, or 64– 66 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa and Hullfish; that any of claims 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, or 54 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa, Hullfish, and Loveland; that any of claims 37, 42, 56, 59–63, or 67 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa, Hullfish, and Takahashi; or that claim 45 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa, Hullfish, Loveland, and Takahashi.” slip op. at 36

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 60–85. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). Our evaluation also necessarily remains cognizant that “[i]n an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. 3 Petitioner filed a second Declaration by Dr. Almeroth after institution (such that it was not available on the preliminary record), but that Declaration is provided primarily as supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to address objections by Patent Owner to the authenticity of various other exhibits. Ex. 1039 ¶ 2. Dr. Almeroth’s second Declaration otherwise merely incorporates Dr. Almeroth’s “technical opinions” by reference to his first Declaration, without providing any further facts or expressing any further opinions that bear on the merits, including claim construction. Id. ¶ 1. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326– 27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,038 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,038
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00294 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33–67 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not establish that Diacakis disclosed the construed server-side network-based portal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “entitled to no weight because it “repeats the [Patent Owner Response] nearly verbatim,” “appears to contain opinions he did not develop,” and “is contradicted by Dr. Rouskas’s own deposition testimony.” Reply 3–4. Although Petitioner makes multiple allegations of deficiencies in Dr. Rouskas’s direct testimony, none of these allegations is sufficiently developed with specific examples. First, we disagree that mere verbatim duplication between an expert declaration and an attorney brief defines “a classic example of a cursory expert declaration the Board disregards.” See id. at 3. The Board’s concern is rather whether expert testimony “cite[s] to any additional supporting evidence or provide[s] any technical reasoning to support [its] statement[s].” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential); see also id. at 16 (“Dr. Jones offers only a verbatim restatement of the assertion being supported, without any supporting evidence or technical reasoning” (emphasis added)). As Patent Owner asserts, “Petitioner fail[s] to provide a single example of how Dr. Rouskas’s testimony is ‘cursory or unsupported.’” Sur-reply 1.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “5. Summary As we note above, we find certain of Patent Owner’s arguments adequately rebutted by Petitioner, such that we do not consider them in our assessment. Nevertheless, Patent Owner retains compelling arguments for its proposed construction, supported by expert testimonial evidence, including dictionary definitions and the ’038 patent specification’s reference to a “portal or a gateway.” We find such references more compellingly refer to “portal” and “gateway” as synonyms rather than alternatives. In addition, Patent Owner provides convincing evidence and argument that rebuts the concern raised by the Board at institution whether Patent Owner’s proposed construction would exclude preferred embodiments. Petitioner, who bears the overall burden, addresses that concern only with attorney argument, which we accord less weight. In light of these considerations, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network.” slip op. at 27

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

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 7 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 21:53, 21:58, 22:2, 22:14–15, 22:19, 22:20–21, 22:27, 22:33, 22:38–39; see PO Resp. 21 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 7). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects clients to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 34–35. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 38 and 46. See Pet. 55–56 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 38 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7), 57–58 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 46 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 7, 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 38–41, 46, 49, 51–53, 55, 57, 58, or 64–66 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis; that any of claims 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, or 54 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Loveland; that any of claims 37, 42, 56, 59–63, or 67 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Takahashi; or that claim 45 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis, Loveland, and Takahashi.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,038 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,038
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00034 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to show claim 6 unpatentable because none of the seven asserted grounds established the required absence of an outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “November 2012 would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that, as the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must circumferentially cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. See Merriam-Webster, Cover, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover (last visited March 2, 2023) (defining “cover,” relevantly, as “something that is placed over or about another thing”). See Ex. 3004. Consequently, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, such as a cloth or fabric or other material, that circumferentially covers all or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the intervals between those struts and members. Consequently, we construe the limitation reciting “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” to mean that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 40

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

    “Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, or otherwise provide any additional argument or evidence to demonstrate that the outer skirt of Levi does not constitute the outer graft covering prohibited by claim 6. Consequently, our initial determinations stand. Furthermore, our definition of outer graft covering herein as “a material or structure that circumferentially covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the 45 interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering” reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by claim 6. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 45

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

    “Both the descriptions and Figure 22 of Spenser II show a cloth covering the proximal outer surface of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve, including the spaces between the struts and members of the frame. Furthermore, the reference discloses that any fibers extending outwardly from the cloth arise from the surface of the cloth, and are not attached directly to the frame, as depicted in Figure 11 of the ’846 Specification. Thus, even were such fibers made of the same material as the cloth, which is not clear from the reference’s disclosure, the cloth would be between the surface-residing fibers and the metallic outer frame. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sleeve-like cloth or fabric of Spenser II corresponds to an outer graft covering between its fibers and its outer frame, and such a covering would be between Spencer II’s surface fibers and its metallic outer frame. Such an outer graft cover is expressly prohibited by the language of claim 6, even if it and associated extending fibers are of the same material.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 10,966,846 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,966,846
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cardiovalve Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01051 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–10 and replacing them with claims 11–20, which Petitioner failed to prove unpatentable over Goldfarb ’267.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “We conclude that Petitioner’s arguments are insufficient to meet its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Goldfarb ’267 anticipates, or renders obvious, the limitation of proposed substitute claim 11 reciting “advancing the end of the first-clip arm and the end of the second-clip arm out of the delivery tube before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube” merely requires advancing the ends of the clip arms out of the delivery tube “before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube.” Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to proposed substitute dependent claims 12–20 due to their dependence from, and incorporation of, the limitations of proposed substitute claim 11. See Supp. Mot. Amend. 1, Reply Supp. Mot. Amend. 1. We therefore conclude that these proposed substitute claims are similarly neither anticipated by, nor obvious over, Goldfarb ’267. III. CONCLUSION We GRANT Patent Owner’s non-contingent Motion to Amend and Supplemental Motion to Amend, canceling original claims 1–10 and replacing them with substitute claims 11–20. Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, and after having analyzed the entirety of the record and assigning appropriate weight to the cited supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claims 11–20 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 57

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having weighed the evidence and Petitioner’s argument, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as: (1) a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least three years of experience in designing or developing medical devices who would, where necessary or desired, work or consult with others including a physician to develop such a medical device; or (2) an interventional cardiologist or cardiac surgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in the heart, and who would, where necessary, work or consult with others including an engineer to develop such a medical device. See Pet. 15–16.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Vesely. Ex. 1003. We have reviewed the credentials of Dr. Vesely and consider him qualified to provide the opinions for which his testimony has 4 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,563,267 B2, July 21, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’267”) (Ex. 1005). 5 Petitioner refers to Goldfarb’s ’267 disclosure of a further alternative at Ex. 1005 col. 27 ll. 57–60 as Embodiment A. See Pet. 19. We understand the asserted Embodiment A to encompass the description that extends to Ex. 1005 col. 28, l. 9. See Pet. 24–48. 6 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,635,329 B2, December 22, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’329”) Ex. 1006. 7 Ex. 1005 cols. 17–23, ll. 66–29, Figs. 9–16; see Pet. 21–22. been submitted. See id. ¶¶ 1–9; see also Ex. 1004 (Dr. Vesely’s curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “is described in Goldfarb ’267 as plainly a single, unitary structure and, as such, each portion argued as separate elements by Petitioner (i.e., male element (yellow), female element (green), coupling member 19 (blue) and flexible arms 19A and 19B (dark blue)) together form a solid, single component. Thus, all of the “elements” described by Petitioner as being “separate” are in fact a single unit that: (1) bears the weight of the fixation device during delivery; (2) absorbs and transfer the axial and rotational forces imposed by the shaft 12; and (3) holds the device in the correct orientation. Petitioner points to no disclosure of Goldfarb ’267 that suggests these elements act independently or separately to perform the functions of the unitary component, nor can we discern any such disclosure. We therefore find that Petitioner’s argument that only the “male element” portion of coupling member 19 constitutes the “support portion” recited in proposed substitute claim 11 is an arbitrary and unduly restrictive interpretation of the reference’s disclosure. This is particularly true given that Petitioner points to no portion of the male element of coupling member 19 performing a supporting function that is not shared by the other elements of coupling member 19. We conclude that the better understanding of the reference is that the entirety of coupling member 19 (including flexible arms 10A and 19B11) constitutes an analogous support portion, as recited by substitute claim 11, because it provides a unitary structure that performs the supporting functions enumerated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 10,702,385 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,702,385

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.