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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 11,014,090 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,014,090
• Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01261 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach the claimed predetermined cycle for controlling distal fluid flow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(1) a person with a B.S. in engineering or an equivalent field, with two-four years of academic or industry experience in aspiration embolectomy and thrombectomy or comparable industry experience who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including a physician, to develop embolectomy or thrombectomy devices; or (2) an interventional neurosurgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in embolectomy or thrombectomy procedures, and who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including an engineer, to develop such a medical device. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 48). Petitioner also contends that, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner states that for purposes of its PO Response, it “accepts ¶ 44). We adopt Petitioner’s characterization because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’402 patent and the cited prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8

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

    “specification explicitly includes sensors similar to those in the prior art in support of their argument that the claimed “predetermined cycle” must not exclude the use of such sensors. Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:55–33:7, 40:66–41:5, 44:9–29). We reviewed the portions of the specification cited by Petitioner. We agree with Patent Owner that one excerpt discussing sensor use appears to be directed to triggering the predetermined cycle rather than causing timing changes during the cycle itself (Ex. 1001, 32:55–66) (describing use of a pressure sensor to “determine when the vacuum channel 3 is clogged by a thrombus and automatically perform the unclogging procedures described herein”), while another excerpt discusses a sensor that Petitioner that the ’402 patent discusses the use of sensors to “tune” the system and that such “tuning” can be done statically (setting the cycle timing in advance) or dynamically (adjusting the timing during the cycle itself). See Ex. 1001, 48:19–49:50. Overall, we find that these disclosures involving sensors demonstrate that sensors may be used in various ways in different embodiments. However, none of these disclosures explicitly discuss the use of sensors in conjunction with a “pre-determined cycle.” Therefore, we find that the ’402 patent specification’s discussion of “sensors” are not particularly informative as to the appropriate construction of a “predetermined cycle” and do not outweigh the other explicit disclosures of “predetermined cycle” in the patent. We next turn to the other intrinsic evidence discussed by the parties — the prosecution history. As discussed by Patent Owner, in the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner found that Garrison did not teach or suggest a “predetermined cycle” because Garrison’s controller “changed the cycle of opening and closing the valves based on feedback from sensors.” Ex. 1004, 86. We acknowledge that the patent applicant filed subsequent comments during prosecution in which they stated that they “do[] not concede that the Examiner’s characterizations of the terms of the claims and the prior art are correct.” Id. at 29. However, we agree with Patent Owner that the importance of the Examiner’s statement in the Notice of Allowance does not rely on it being an express disclaimer (a standard which it does not meet). PO Sur-reply 8. We also considered Petitioner’s contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of Garrison may have been in error (PO Resp. 16); however, even if this were true, the Examiner’s statement still provides helpful insight into how the Examiner was interpreting the term sensors to change the opening and closing of valves during a cycle was not a “predetermined cycle.” Id. at 86. In sum, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the usage of the term “predetermined cycle” in the ’402 patent specification and prosecution history. Thus, after considering all of the cited evidence, we construe “predetermined cycle” to mean that “the timing of the sequence of valve operations in the cycle is determined beforehand, i.e., fixed, rather than varying based on feedback after operation begins.”” slip op. at 14

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

    “2. Other Terms The parties also provided proposed constructions for the limitations of “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” and “control[ling] fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” See Pet. 15–16; Pet. Reply 1–8; PO Resp. 22–24; PO Sur-Reply 2–6. However, having evaluated the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor Mr. Brown propose any combination of Yang and Mullins that does not include Mullins’s pressure sensor in order “to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Indeed, in addressing the “predetermined cycle” limitation, Mr. Brown contends that Mullins discloses a “cycling controller that ‘varies aspiration pressure according to sensed pressure within the catheter lumen.’” Ex.1005 ¶¶ 131–32 (citing, e.g., Ex.1008, 27:40–28:20 (“[a] novel aspect of this pump system is the incorporation of feedback into the pump algorithm in order to produce more effective pressure cycling”)). This use of a sensor to change pressure during a cycle, is not a “predetermined cycle” under our construction. combinations is its discussion of distal end flow control, not for its sensors.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 83). However, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds rely on the combination of Yang and Mullins, especially with regard to Mullins’s disclosure of “a controller” in order “to control fluid flow in and out.” As discussed above, Mullins relies on the sensor-feedback approach in order to control flow and we find that Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence of how the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins would control flow without using Mullins’s sensor feedback approach. See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (error to “consider[] … references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in [them] … that diverge from and teach away from the invention”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of Yang and Mullins discloses or renders obvious “a controller configured to open and close the vacuum valve and the vent valve in a predetermined cycle to change a level of vacuum at the distal end of the catheter and to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective evidence and arguments, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’402 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Yang and Mullins.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,406,402 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,406,402
• Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29

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

    “Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,906,508
• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,770,121
• Candela Corporation v. Nikolai TankovichNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00234 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–28 not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish simultaneous delivery of overlapping and non-overlapping laser beams.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill, but offers that a “POSA may have alternatively held a degree in electrical engineering.” PO Resp. 10; Ex. 4–10, 13, 15–17. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, and also consider Patent Owner’s additional proposal. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “In this case, the Specification is devoted to the teaching simultaneous delivery of multiple laser beams. The Specification begins by stating that “[t]here are no lasers or laser handpieces on the market today that can simultaneously deliver two or more wavelengths of laser energy in spacial, fractional form.” Ex. 1001, 1:12–14. The Specification explains that “laser treatment usually requires different modalities of energy in order [to] successfully treat the pathologies to which they are applied,” but that “the sequential application of multiple wavelengths of laser energy compromises the treatment.” Id. at 1:16–25. The Specification then continues to explain various problems associated with the sequential application of multiple wavelengths. Id. at 1:25–52. The Specification concludes its introduction as follows: What is needed in the art therefore is an effective laser therapy system that can simultaneously deliver multiple wavelengths of laser energy through the use of a single laser unit without producing interference between the wavelengths within the treated tissue.” slip op. at 13

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

    “summarized above, we find Patent Owner to have the better position. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the combination of Hsia and Black fail to teach or suggest simultaneously delivering non-overlapping beams. The combination also fails to teach or suggest producing beam patterns that include both overlapping and non-overlapping beams. PO Resp. 34. To begin, while we recognize that Hsia discloses overlapping and non-overlapping treatment patterns, those patterns are achieved by the sequential delivery of laser beams as a user physically moves a single handpiece that delivers a single beam across the skin of a patient. Ex. 1004 ¶ 68, Figs. 8 and 9; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 73–74. Black does not cure that deficiency as Black does not disclose treatment with non-overlapping beams. Ex. 2001 ¶ 99. Black discloses using a “refractive optics, mirror-based optical delivery device” for the simultaneous delivery of multiple overlapping laser beams. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12– 13. The beams align on an optical path and, using different laser beam parameters, deliver treatment at various depths within a combined beam path. Id. ¶¶ 54, 58–59. Thus, while Black may be characterized as creating overlapping beams, we do not find sufficient support for a finding that Black teaches or suggests creating non-overlapping beams for simultaneous delivery, and the claims require both. We also do not find sufficient support for Petitioner’s claim that a POSA would have found it obvious to combine Black and Hsia to simultaneously produce both overlapping beams and nonoverlapping beams, based on the disclosures in these references. See, e.g.,” slip op. at 31

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Claims Claims Not 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Claims Shown Shown Basis Unpatentable Unpatentable 1–28 103 Hsia, Black 1–28 Hsia, Black, 23 103 23 Negus Hsia, Black, 27, 28 103 27, 28 Altshuler Altshuler, 1–28 103 1–28 Black Altshuler, 23 103 23 Black, Negus Overall Outcome 1–28 IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–28 of the ’481 patent are unpatentable; and” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 10,675,481 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,675,481
• Pioneer Pet Products, LLC v. Oil-Dri Corporation Of AmericaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00691 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,439,393 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,439,393
• Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00740 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–13, 15, and 17–20 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds, chiefly because Lambert did not teach system-selected virtual bus stops.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill. We find that Petitioner’s level of skill is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’411 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to the backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system, as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 6–7; see also PO Resp. 20–23. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’411 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 20–23. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent to explain why the art of the ’411 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components in determining the relevant skill in the art. See id.; see also Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’411 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art for a patent that never even uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems, as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems, would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’411 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews’s testimony that he has experience in “locationbased systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. This experience demonstrates that Mr. Andrews had at least two years of experience in “optimization modeling.” The parties agree, however, that Mr. Andrews does not have experience working with ride-sharing systems. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s definition includes artisans who lack that particular experience. Specifically, Patent Owner’s definition provides that: A person with an advanced degree (a master’s or Ph.D.) in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics or a related field and a focus on data science, artificial intelligence or operations research would also have been an ordinary artisan in the field of the ’411 patent even if that person lacked two years of specific experience with ride-sharing systems. PO Resp. 20 (emphases added). In other words, even if the first prong of Patent Owner’s definition requires the expert’s experience to be “in the context of ride-sharing systems,” Mr. Andrews would nevertheless satisfy the qualifications of a POSITA under the second prong, which does not require experience with “ride-sharing systems.” See id. This Decision does not turn on the differences between the parties’ characterization of a skilled artisan.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The parties are in agreement. Despite the parties’ briefing on this term, the parties do not dispute the construction of “virtual bus stops.” Absent any controversy, we adopt the parties agreed-upon construction of the term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe 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))). Specifically, we adopt the parties’ construction that “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” Compare PO Resp. 23, with Pet. Reply 4. We further adopt the parties’ construction that the system need not use artificial intelligence—whatever that may mean—to select the virtual bus stops. Compare PO Sur-reply 5, with Pet. Reply 4; see also supra § III.A (“[W]e need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never even uses the term.”).” slip op. at 18

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

    “performs actions (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:49–52; 2:63–67, 3:19–20, 3:34–35), we decline to infer from Lambert’s single sentence (id. at 4:17–23) that Lambert’s server is also programmed to perform the step of “dynamically selecting pickup and dropoff locations” (i.e., virtual bus stops). In other words, if Lambert’s server was programmed to select pickup and dropoff locations, as Petitioner would have us believe, we find that Lambert’s disclosure would have stated so. It does not.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 10,197,411 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,197,411
• Chanel, Inc. v. Molo Design, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2023 · IPR2022-00543 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–11, 13, 16, 18, 20–25, and 27 were not shown unpatentable under any of three §103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish the claimed foldable supports and fastener arrangement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues, with support from its declarant, Mr. Rake, that one skilled in the art during the relevant time frame “would have a bachelor’s degree and at least two years of relevant experience working as an industrial designer, interior designer, furniture designer, architect, or other similar professional” and “would be knowledgeable regarding furniture design and/or the design of exhibit and display systems, and would have a general understanding of related manufacturing processes.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–44). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal, and Patent Owner’s declarant agrees with it. Ex. 2010 ¶ 34 (“I believe this is an accurate definition of a POSITA and have used this for my analysis.”); see also Pet. Reply 1 (“The parties agree on the POSITA and level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’366 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Because the issue of whether Petitioner has proven unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence can be resolved without expressly construing the claim terms “supports,” “self-supporting,” “operable,” and “flaccid,” we reject the notion that Petitioner somehow violated our rules by not developing a more explicit construction of those terms. In addition, because Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that we need not formally construe any of the terms to address the issues in this proceeding or offer a competing construction, we need not construe any of these terms. See, e.g., Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Even if we consider an argument that claim 1 would have been obvious without considering whether a POSITA would have been motivated to fold the SoftHousing end panels into a tubular configuration, we would not find that argument convincing. None of the prior art at issue here discloses partition end panels that are semi-circular as in the design the ’366 patent discloses, much less flexible panels folded into that configuration. Instead, both SoftHousing and Arens disclose end panels having unfolded, planar surfaces, and the Velcro reference does not teach partitions at all. See Ex. 1005, 2; Ex. 1006, 11; Ex. 1007, 2; Ex. 1012, 2; Ex. 1013, Fig. 3; PO Resp. 34–35; Ex. 2010 ¶ 124. Further, merely adding the Velcro teachings from SoftHousing III, Arens, or the Velcro reference to the planar end panels of SoftHousing would not necessarily satisfy the claim limitation requiring a fastener capable of securing supports in a tubular configuration, and Petitioner does not explain how that modification meets that aspect of the fasteners limitation without the premise that a POSITA would have been motivated to form a tubular configuration. See Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–88, 118). The cited declarant testimony repeats the same language from the Petition when addressing why modifying SoftHousing to include fasteners would have been obvious (i.e., the fasteners would have been obvious only when a POSITA already “wanted” to form the tubular configuration). See Ex. 1003 ¶ 118. Neither the Petition nor supporting declarant set forth a coherent argument that adding fasteners capable of securing a folded support in a tubular configuration would have been obvious merely by adding Velcro to the end panels of the honeycomb core in SoftHousing’s partitions.” slip op. at 25

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

    “4. Conclusion We find that Petitioner’s proposed modifications to and combination of SoftHousing I, SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, and Velcro do not disclose all of the limitations of independent claim 1. We find that we need not reach Patent Owner’s alleged objective indicia of nonobviousness arguments because even if Patent Owner submitted no such evidence or failed to establish a nexus or any persuasive objective indicia evidence, our conclusion as to the obviousness of claim 1 would not change. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’366 patent is unpatentable as obvious based on the combination of SoftHousing I, SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, and Velcro.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,866,366 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,866,366

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.