• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00147 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–6 and 8–20 not shown unpatentable under three obviousness grounds, principally because the proposed combinations did not establish a feasible curved battery or transparent potting encapsulating the components.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, e.g., sensor system design, including inertial and other motion sensor system design, and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 25. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’124 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We need not reach the issue of whether the preamble is limiting for purposes of determining patentability of the challenged claims. Even were we to agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting and the claims are limited to a finger-worn ring wearable computer device, Petitioner has relied on Schröder in each ground to disclose a “wearable computing device configured to be worn around a finger of a wearer.” Pet. 22 (Ground 1), 45 (Ground 2, relying on Yuen for adding the functionality of light sources with a photodetector, temperature sensors, and varying the sampling frequency of sensor data acquisition), 56 (Ground 3). We agree with Petitioner that Schröder discloses such a device. Thus, no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and find that Patent Owner has the better position for several reasons. First, the record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “would have to be reduced in size on the 6 There is no Exhibit 2022 in the record of this case. magnitude of 5-10x from its current size to fit in a ring of Schröder.” Resp. 38 (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Second, Petitioner relies on evidence in the Reply that Petitioner failed to specifically identify in the Petition. Compare Reply 3–5 (citing Ex. 1369 ¶¶ 7–14; Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 47, 71; Ex. 2022, 138:7–143:1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96, 337; Ex. 2021, 12–13, 307:7–17; Ex. 2020, 212:6–214:13; Ex. 1081, 130:18–131:14; Ex. 1010 ¶ 168), 9 (referring back to Section § II.B.2) with Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 157, 163, 168, 201, Fig. 6). More specifically, while the portion of Dr. Anthony’s Declaration cited in the Petition (see Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99)) mentions the Technology Background Section V of his Declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–147), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Anthony sufficiently explains what evidence supports his opinion that it was feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices into finger-rings, or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have miniaturized a curved battery for incorporation into Schröder’s ring. Ex. 1002 ¶ 196 (describing that rechargeable batteries powering wearable electronic devices were “well-known by 2013” and “had also undergone significant advances in terms of miniaturization and energy density [that] made it feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices such as supercapacitors into smaller form factors, such as finger rings, without sacrificing functionality” such as “lithium-polymer (Li-Po) batteries and solid-state batteries.”). Moreover, some of Petitioner’s citations in the Reply appear to be incorrect as there is no Exhibit 2022 of record in this case, as noted above. These issues undermine the strength of Petitioner’s showing by making it difficult to follow its reasoning, much less identify where in the record that reasoning finds support. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Third, even considering Petitioner’s new Reply arguments and” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony over Dr. Anthony’s and agree that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to account for the constraints of a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 140. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’124 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’124 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 140). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 141. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura patent), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 74–84. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 85. We also agree with Dr. Mercier that Dr. Anthony’s testimony lacks evidence or a technical analysis of the power requirements for the various sensors he suggests including in a wearable device and the capacity of the proposed GMBPow battery. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 210, 214–17; Ex. 2018 ¶ 97. Moreover, Dr. Anthony does not address the issues with the batteries that are identified in the references he discusses. For example, Dr. Anthony does not address Lee’s disclosure that “direct coating of electrode slurry onto plain paper led to the occasional internal-shorting of the device due to the leakage of the electrode material through a large-sized hole in the paper.” Ex. 1019, 2415. In contrast, Dr. Mercier discusses the pitfalls the skilled artisan faced in developing finger-ring devices. See, e.g., Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 77–79 (discussing the issues Rhee’s and Asada’s large rings), 83 (identifying power requirements as a design constraint). For example, Dr. Mercier explains that “flexible or curved batteries include flexible packaging materials such as aluminum laminated films that house the electrodes and electrolyte” such that “once the battery packaging is added to a battery such as GMBPow and then placed within a housing (e.g., external housing shell and internal potting), the resulting device would have dimensions that are not suitable for a finger-worn ring.” Id. ¶ 96 (citing Ex. 2026).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,188,124 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,188,124
• 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
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2026 · IPR2024-01078 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 11–15, and 38–43 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish obviousness over the asserted combinations, including the feasibility and motivation to use curved batteries in a ring.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 22; see also Ex. 2018 ¶ 27. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’953 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner expresses that it “does not believe that any term requires express construction.” Pet. 8. “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that no terms need to be construed.” PO Resp. 22. We agree with the parties that resolution of their dispute does not require us to construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy controversy) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “be improper hindsight in Petitioner’s position. Petitioner and Dr. Anthony assume that a POSITA would position the battery between Schröder’s ring halves and implement Mestas’s curved battery because it “allows a larger battery to conform to a ring’s circular shape without stressing the battery or ring housing.” Pet. 60, 64–65; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 337, 351–354. That position, however, ignores alternative designs that are at least equally supported by Schröder’s disclosure (see Ex. 1007, Fig. 3), but would not result in a ring configured as recited in the challenged claims. Petitioner attempts to downplay this concern by characterizing the modification of Schröder’s ring to include Mestas’s curved battery as an obvious “matter of choice” in design. See Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 71–77). We disagree. As explained above, the record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor because they are “5 to 10 times” the size that would be required for a finger ring. PO Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 2021, 313:12). Petitioner argues that it “does not propose bodily incorporating Mestas’s battery into Schröder’s ring,” which on the surface is correct. See Reply 10. But this does not help Petitioner meet its burden because its actual obviousness theory that “a POSITA would have found it trivial to implement Mestas’s teachings into a ring like Schröder’s ‘finger-ring’” is not persuasive. See Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 338). For the same reasons explained in Section II.D.1 above in our analysis of Ground 1, Dr. Mestas’s teaching of a curved battery (Ex. 1002 ¶ 338) in the much smaller form factor of Schröder’s ring is not credible. See Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9 (acknowledging that it would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill to miniaturize Mestas’s battery, but that a POSITA could try to procure one); 321:5–10 (conceding that he did not try to ascertain whether such a battery was available in the relevant time frame). Instead, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Petitioner’s proposed modification would have presented intractable practical challenges. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 228, 230–240 (describing various aspects of battery design that Dr. Anthony did not consider). As before, Dr. Mercier’s testimony is further supported by evidence showing a consistent pattern of flat battery use in prior art finger-ring devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 29; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 57–67. In sum, Petitioner’s showing for limitation 1[c] is deficient in multiple respects. First, Petitioner assumes that an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Mestas’s curved battery in the much smaller interior space occupied by Schröder’s inlay 12 without sufficiently considering the feasibility of that modification or alternative designs suggested by Schröder. Second, even if we accept Petitioner’s purported rationale for the combination (which we do not because we find it that it is predicated on improper hindsight), Petitioner has not shown that an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing the proposed modification.” slip op. at 46

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the evidence presented by Patent Owner is sufficient to establish that the Oura Ring Gen. 3 Horizon and Gen. 4 products are commercial embodiments of claim 1 of the ’953 patent and that claim 1 is coextensive in that it encompasses the entire structural apparatus of these products. See PO Resp. 82–92; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 322–346 (comparing these products to claim 1); Ex. 2029; Ex. 2030; Ex. 2118; Ex. 2119.9 Indeed, Petitioner does not challenge any aspect of Dr. Mercier’s limitation-by-limitation analysis showing that these products practice claim 1. But more than just practicing the claimed invention, Patent Owner’s evidence supports that claim 1 recites the overall structure that provides for the particular form factor of the Oura Ring Gen. 3 Horizon and Gen. 4 products, i.e., a fingerring “wedding band” design that allows for the electronic components to be entirely contained within the ring housing with a curved external surface having no protrusions or bulges. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 359–360; see also id. ¶¶ 322–346 (pictures depicting wedding band design of the Oura Ring Gen. 3 Horizon and Gen. 4 products); Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 47–49 (“[Patent Owner’s] decision to highlight the ring form factor indicates this feature’s importance to the marketplace success of the Oura Ring.”). We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the Oura Ring Application and/or Oura Membership are essential, unclaimed features such that a presumption of nexus is not appropriate. The Oura Application functions in conjunction with the Oura Ring to form a “complete solution” 9 Patent Owner and Dr. Mercier only compare these products to claim 1. Patent Owner has not demonstrated a nexus to independent claim 38. ¶¶ 20–21. The Oura Application cannot receive or display any information absent the Oura Ring’s ability to collect the information from the user. Id. Even though the Oura Application may provide additional unclaimed functionality, such as displaying activity, sleep, and readiness scores based on the data collected by the Oura ring that allow “a user to take advantage of the ring’s offerings,” this functionality is secondary to the ring’s ability to collect that data, without which, the Oura Application would serve no purpose. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 21; Ex. 2024, 93:22–95:22. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “there is rarely a perfect correspondence between the claimed invention and the product.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1374. Here, we find that on the spectrum of “unclaimed features,” the Oura Ring Application is closer to the “insignificant features” end because, while it allows the user to access and interpret data tracked by their Oura Ring, it does not materially impact the functionality of the Oura Ring or its structure.10 See Teva 8 F.4th at 1361 (explaining that “like the coextensiveness requirement itself, the concept of unclaimed features is best viewed as part of a spectrum”).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,281,953 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,281,953
• MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. / MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · IPR2023-00016 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–6 not shown unpatentable because unexpected results outweighed the prima facie obviousness case, and granted Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”)See Paper 83 (“CAFC Decision”). The Federal Circuit did not disturb our determination that Petitioner “established a prima facie case of obviousness.” See CAFC Dec. 6–8. However, it took issue with the unexpected results analysis in the Decision, explaining that “without more explanation from the Board as to its determination that the experiments [offered by Patent Owner to show unexpected results] compared the challenged claims to the closest prior art, we cannot reach a judgment on MSN’s challenges to the Board’s holding of non-obviousness.” Id. at 14. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated the Decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the unexpected results evidence. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner and credit Dr. Davies’s testimony (Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 210–215) that a POSA would not have expected the Glu3 substitution to produce such a result. Indeed, the premise for Petitioner’s “conservative substitution” rationale is that the Glu3 substitution would have been expected to produce an analog having similar properties to human uroguanylin. See, e.g., Pet. 1, 36 (stating that a POSA “would have expected this particular conservative substitution to retain excellent receptor-activating activity”); Reply 3 (urging that the reason to modify a known compound may be an expectation that the new compound will have “similar properties to the old”) (internal quotations omitted). Patent Owner’s HPLC data, however, demonstrate a difference in kind between the data for SP-304 (a single HPLC peak) and uroguanylin (two distinct peaks corresponding to the active and inactive topoisomer) after incubation under the same conditions. As Dr. Davies explains, “topoisomers exist as a mixture of compounds with different[] spatial conformations” that are “continuously interconverting between spatial conformations” with “varying degrees of interconversion stability.” See Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 51–56. Thus, Patent Owner’s data show that the Glu3 substitution results in a peptide that is demonstrably more stable against interconversion than the parent, unmodified peptide.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia with nexusObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s evidence persuasive to show that the Glu3 substitution results in an unexpected improvement in interconversion stability. As explained above, RP-HPLC was a known technique for separating the topoisomers of human uroguanylin. Ex. 2010, 230–231; Ex. 2011, 27–28; Ex. 2020, 223; Ex. 2028, TRUL00018269; see also Ex. 1063 ¶¶ 37, 40 (Petitioner’s expert confirming same). It was also known that one of human uroguanylin’s topoisomers was biologically active, whereas the other, i.e., what we and the parties refer to as the “inactive” topoisomer, had significantly less or no activity at the same concentration. Ex. 2011, 31 (“compound I shows significant activity in the cGMP producing assay, whereas compound II is practically inactive”); see also Ex. 2010, 238–239 (Fig. 8) (showing the “A isomer” had a potency “with a minimal concentration between 10-7and 10-8 M,” but that the B isomer “had virtually no effect on cGMP level at 10-6 M”); Ex. 2074, 48 (compound II “showed maximal 10% of the activity of compound I at 10-6 M”). The chromatograph for uroguanylin in Patent Owner’s data is consistent with these teachings, showing two peaks representing the active and inactive topoisomers. Compare Ex. 2028, TRUL00018269 (Fig. 1) with Ex. 2011, 28 (Fig. 2). The chromatograph for SP-304 shows a markedly different result, i.e., a “single peak,” which was confirmed “using the cGMP T84 cell assay” to represent “the fully active conformer of SP-304.” Ex. 2028, TRUL00018269; Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 208–209. We agree with Patent Owner and credit Dr. Davies’s testimony (Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 210–215) that a POSA would not have expected the Glu3 substitution to produce such a result. Indeed, the premise for Petitioner’s “conservative substitution” rationale is that the Glu3 substitution would have been expected to produce an analog having similar properties to human uroguanylin. See, e.g., Pet. 1, 36 (stating that a POSA “would have expected this particular conservative substitution to retain excellent receptor-activating activity”); Reply 3 (urging that the reason to modify a known compound may be an expectation that the new compound will have “similar properties to the old”) (internal quotations omitted). Patent Owner’s HPLC data, however, demonstrate a difference in kind between the data for SP-304 (a single HPLC peak) and uroguanylin (two distinct peaks corresponding to the active and inactive topoisomer) after incubation under the same conditions. As Dr. Davies explains, “topoisomers exist as a mixture of compounds with different[] spatial conformations” that are “continuously interconverting between spatial conformations” with “varying degrees of interconversion stability.” See Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 51–56. Thus, Patent Owner’s data show that the Glu3 substitution results in a peptide that is demonstrably more stable against interconversion than the parent, unmodified peptide.” slip op. at 34

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “motion. The American Peptide letter contains out of court statements from a third party submitted by the EPO opponent. The statements in the letter were not made under oath, nor is there evidence that Patent Owner was ever able to question the author of that letter or anyone else with personal knowledge of the statements therein. Petitioner argues that the American Peptide letter is evidence “to doubt that the ‘singular peak’ for uroguanylin in Liu represents the active topoisomer of uroguanylin” because it evidences that American Peptide “provided its customers with the ‘B’ (i.e., inactive) form of uroguanylin at the time.” Pet. Remand Resp. 25. That is, Petitioner relies on the American Peptide letter for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Such use plainly implicates the rule against hearsay and falls squarely within our prior reasoning for excluding the Currie submission portion of Exhibit 1067. We incorporate that analysis herein. See Dec. 61–72. Petitioner asserts that the American Peptide letter is admissible under the residual hearsay exception in FRE 807. MTE Opp. 3–5. We disagree. The American Peptide letter was submitted by the EPO opponent specifically for the purpose of opposing a foreign counterpart to the ’786 patent. We see no reason to distinguish it from the other materials previously excluded as hearsay in the Currie submission. Petitioner’s assertion that it contains sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness because it was “provided by a neutral third-party” (American Peptide) and “an individual having first- hand knowledge, [American Peptide Company’s] VP of sales and marketing” is speculation. See id. at 3–4. Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has never been afforded an opportunity to examine anyone regarding the statements in this letter or even confirm that it is, in fact, a letter from the American Peptide Company. The mere fact that it was submitted in a foreign patent proceeding does not make it any more trustworthy than any other untested assertion offered by an adverse party in a legal proceeding.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,041,786
• MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. / MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · IPR2022-00722 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable because the unexpected results from the Glu3 substitution outweighed the prima facie obviousness showing; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was granted.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “More specifically, the Federal Circuit identified “three reasons” why “the Board’s determination that the[se] experiments compared the claimed invention with the closest prior art lack[ed] adequate explanation” and instructed us to address these issues on remand. See CAFC Dec. 11–13. First, the Court stated we “should determine, based on the evidence put forward by the parties, whether plecanatide exhibits topoisomerism and whether the testing of the challenged claims should encompass both the active and inactive forms.” Id. at 12.3 Second, the Court instructed us to reconsider what the closest prior art compound is in view of Patent Owner’s “contention that highly pure A-form uroguanylin could be maintained as a lyophilized powder,” noting that “[i]f it is true . . . that uroguanylin can be maintained and therefore tested in its active A form as a lyophilized powder, that would support that the experiments [which were conducted in solution] did not use the closest prior art.” Id. Third, the Court observed that the Decision did not sufficiently address “whether the experiments submitted by [Patent Owner] actually used” the closest prior art and instructed the Board “to reevaluate the experimental evidence consistent” with the determinations noted above. Id. at 12–13.” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “In sum, we find that there is a sufficient nexus between Patent Owner’s results and the challenged claims and that those results are reasonably commensurate with the same. Accordingly, for all of reasons explained above, the unexpected results Patent Owner relies upon are probative of non-obviousness. E. Conclusion for Ground 1 Weighing the record as a whole in view of the findings and analysis above as well as our findings and analysis relating to Petitioner’s prima facie showing in the Decision, we conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Currie and Li. The evidence suggesting that it would have been obvious to make the Glu3 substitution because it is a conservative substitution (see Dec. 20–38 (§ III.E.ii)) is substantially outweighed by Patent Owner’s comparatively strong evidence demonstrating unexpected results relating to improved interconversion stability, potency, and binding affinity from the Glu3 substitution. See Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Evidence of objective indicia [such as unexpected results] ‘can be the most probative evidence of nonobviousness in the record,’ and . . . enable[s] ‘the court to avert the trap of hindsight.’”) (quoting Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Indeed, the interconversion and potency categories of Patent Owner’s unexpected results showing are particularly strong such that even without the additional results in Liu, we would still reach the same ultimate conclusion on obviousness. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 56

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for patent owner

    “same combination of Currie and Li for the limitations of claim 1 and the similar limitations recited in the other independent claims. In the Decision, we found that, based on the teachings in those references, an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have been motivated both to select human uroguanylin as a lead compound and modify its sequence by making a conservative Glu3 substitution for uroguanylin’s Asp3. Dec. 15–37. We did not, however, credit Petitioner’s other purported rationales for that modification. Id. at 34–37. Those findings were not disturbed on appeal. See CAFC Dec. 6–8 (rejecting 9 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective after the filing of the application that led to the ’786 patent. Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. 10 U.S. Pat. 5,489,670, issued Feb. 6, 1996 (Ex. 1005) (“Currie”). 11 Z. Li et al., Purification, cDNA Sequence, and Tissue Distribution of Rat Uroguanylin, 68 Regulatory Peptides 45–56 (1997) (Ex. 1006) (“Li”). 12 R. Narayani et al., Polymer-coated Gelatin Capsules as Oral Delivery Devices and their Gastrointestinal Tract Behavior in Humans, 7 J. Biomater. Sci. Polymer Edn. 39–48 (1995) (Ex. 1007) (“Narayani”). 13 M. Campieri et al., Oral Budesonide is as Effective as Oral Prednisolone in Active Crohn’s Disease, 41 Gut 209–214 (1997) (Ex. 1008) (“Campieri”). 14 U.S. Pat. 5,359,030, issued Oct. 25, 1994 (Ex. 1009) (“Ekwuribe”). Patent Owner’s alternative arguments for affirmance). We incorporate by reference the portions of the Decision addressing Petitioner’s prima facie showing herein. See Dec. 8–37 (§§ III.A–D and E.i–ii). We consider the findings and explanation therein to the extent it bears on our analysis below.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “motion. The American Peptide letter contains out of court statements from a third party submitted by the EPO opponent. The statements in the letter were not made under oath, nor is there evidence that Patent Owner was ever able to question the author of that letter or anyone else with personal knowledge of the statements therein. Petitioner argues that the American Peptide letter is evidence “to doubt that the ‘singular peak’ for uroguanylin in Liu represents the active topoisomer of uroguanylin” because it evidences that American Peptide “provided its customers with the ‘B’ (i.e., inactive) form of uroguanylin at the time.” Pet. Remand Resp. 25. That is, Petitioner relies on the American Peptide letter for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Such use plainly implicates the rule against hearsay and falls squarely within our prior reasoning for excluding the Currie submission portion of Exhibit 1067. We incorporate that analysis herein. See Dec. 61–72. Petitioner asserts that the American Peptide letter is admissible under the residual hearsay exception in FRE 807. MTE Opp. 3–5. We disagree. The American Peptide letter was submitted by the EPO opponent specifically for the purpose of opposing a foreign counterpart to the ’786 patent. We see no reason to distinguish it from the other materials previously excluded as hearsay in the Currie submission. Petitioner’s assertion that it contains sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness because it was “provided by a neutral third-party” (American Peptide) and “an individual having first- hand knowledge, [American Peptide Company’s] VP of sales and marketing” is speculation. See id. at 3–4. Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has never been afforded an opportunity to examine anyone regarding the statements in this letter or even confirm that it is, in fact, a letter from the American Peptide Company. The mere fact that it was submitted in a foreign patent proceeding does not make it any more trustworthy than any other untested assertion offered by an adverse party in a legal proceeding. For these reasons, we grant Patent Owner’s motion to exclude page 86 of Exhibit 1067.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,041,786
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01077 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 11, and 13–20 were not shown unpatentable over either Yuen and Mestas or Schröder and Mestas, principally because the curved-battery and waterproof-cavity showings were deficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the term “ring” is not limited to a finger- worn ring. All of the challenged independent recite a “wearable ring computing device” (claims 1 and 11) or “ring computing device” (claim 14). Nothing in the claim language itself refers to where that device is worn. Moreover, the fact that Patent Owner has in several related patents added claim language to expressly recite a ring that is “finger-worn” or “worn around the finger” evidences that the plain meaning of the term “ring” by itself does not require such. Ex. 1362, 44:45–46:61 (claims 1–18); Ex. 1363, 44:64–46:56 (claims 1–17); Ex. 1364, 48:22–23 (claim 1); see Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1135, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining that the fact that another claim recites a “wood decking board” suggests the term “board” is not itself limited to one made from wood or cut from a log because “[w]hen different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed”). This understanding is further supported by the Specification of the ’859 patent. It is true, as Patent Owner asserts, that the Specification describes a preferred embodiment that is a finger-worn ring. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 22A–B, 23A (depicting a finger-worn ring). But precedent cautions against importing limitations from the preferred embodiment into claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Indeed, the Specification here anticipates such arguments and makes clear that the applicants’ wearable computing device (WCD) is not limited to a ring worn on the finger: The WCD can be in the form of a ring that can be worn on the finger of a human (or animal) user. Although the WCD of the present disclosure is depicted as a ring that can be worn on the finger of a user, other shapes, designs, and form factors can be utilized for the WCD. For example, the WCD can be in the form of a wrist band, bracelet, necklace, earring, or any other type of wearable accessory. In this regard, references to the finger of a user in the present application can be considered to apply to other portions of a human body depending on the form of the WCD, such as wrist, neck, ear, etc. Ex. 1001, 8:51–61.” slip op. at 11

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

    “ordinarily-skilled artisan to modify Yuen’s device to form the waterproof cavity recited in claim 1, much less explain the particular modifications Petitioner contends that artisan would have made to Yuen’s device housing to achieve such. This is particularly problematic given that the figures Petitioner relies upon in Yuen and Mestas uniformly depict larger, wrist/arm-band type devices. See Ex. 1006, Figs. 2–13, 12:52–55 (depicting a “wrist-worn or arm-mounted accessory such as a watch or bracelet”); Ex. 1010, Figs. 1–6, ¶ 151 (same). Thus, Petitioner’s obviousness theory requires multiple modifications to Yuen’s depicted structure: (1) modifying the identified portions of Yuen’s device housing so that they form a waterproof cavity therebetween; and (2) shrinking that device and its components down to a ring designed to fit around a single toe. We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that such modifications would require a “complex” re-engineering of Yuen’s existing structure that Petitioner and Dr. Anthony do not sufficiently explain. See Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 108–109, 129–130, 137–138. The testimony in Dr. Anthony’s supplemental declaration does not provide the missing explanation. Dr. Anthony continues to assert that Yuen’s sensor protrusion is sealed in the space between the alleged bounding members, relying on the same annotated versions of Figures 4 and 5, without addressing the fact that according to Petitioner’s own annotations those bounding members only form a shell that is open to the attachment band at either end. See Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 26–28. Indeed, Dr. Anthony appears to acknowledge that Yuen only teaches attaching the sensor module portion of the alleged cavity with watertight glue, but asserts that “it would not make sense to have a device that is waterproof in some areas and not others.” Id. ¶ 29. That assertion, however, is not supported by anything beyond Dr. Anthony’s say-so and ignores that Yuen’s teachings regarding a watertight seal/glue refer only to the sensor package portion of the alleged cavity. See Ex. 1006, 14:66–15:4, 15:10–14. Dr. Anthony’s assertion that Mestas teaches additional “waterproofing techniques” that could be applied to Yuen’s housing is similarly cursory. See Ex. 1079 ¶ 30. He does not identify what those techniques are or how a POSITA would use them to modify Yuen. Id. Accordingly, we do not credit this testimony.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “the asserted evidence of secondary considerations and a patent claim if the patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (emphasis added)). “That is, presuming nexus is appropriate when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If, on the other hand, “the thing that is commercially successful is not coextensive with the patented invention—for example, if the patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or process, the patentee is not entitled to a presumption of nexus.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,139,859 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,139,859
• AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00402 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s revised non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–4 and substituting claims 7 and 8, which Petitioner did not prove unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). A “patent owner bears the burden of persuasion to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the motion to amend complies” with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1). Specifically, a patent owner must demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent; and (4) the amendment does not introduce new matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)–(b). For the reasons explained below, Patent Owner satisfies its burden of persuasion to show that the amendments comply with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties rely on expert testimony for their respective positions relating to the number of years of experience needed to attain ordinary skill, but neither expert cites supporting evidence for their testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 33; Ex. 2002 ¶ 15. Our decision is the same regardless of whether the length of experience is two years or three. We find Patent Owner’s proposed “wireless communications” is more consistent with the ’958 patent than Petitioner’s proposed “telecommunication,” which encompasses a variety of technologies including, e.g., landline and wireless telephones, cable, and satellite. See Ex. 1001, 1:11–62 (describing the invention in terms of wireless communications). Accordingly, we adopt a modified version of Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, substituting “wireless communications” for “telecommunication.” Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the recited second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. The plain meaning of “first type” and “second type” indicates that the first type and second type are different in kind. RMTA 22 (App. A). Our interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which explains that second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. As Patent Owner points out, the ’958 patent discloses “first type of system information (1TYP SIB) is . . . essential . . . for initial system access” and “second type of system information (2TYP SIB) is nonessential system information . . . defined as all other types of information, and thus excludes the [] information required for initial access.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:34– 46); see also Ex. 1001, Abstract (interchangeably using the terms second type and non-essential). Despite Petitioner’s argument that this disclosure is non-limiting and directed to a disclaimed example embodiment (Opp. 8–9), Petitioner could not identify any embodiment, among the approximately forty disclosed embodiments, describing something other than the first type SIB being essential information and the second type SIB being non-essential information. Tr. 22:18–26. Even the Petition acknowledges that “the ’958 Patent further classifies a second type of system information, the ‘non-essential’ SI, which is defined as all other types of information excluding that first type of information required for initial access.” Pet. 5. Furthermore, the prior art of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill would have understood second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 48 (describing two categories of system information, “essential SI” and “Other SI”). Patent Owner’s expert also understood the recited first and second type SIBs as being mutually exclusive. See Ex. 1011, 49:10–13. For the above reasons, we do not agree with Petitioner that the recited second type SIB lacks any requirements, nor do we interpret claims 7 and 8 such that the first type SIB could be a second type SIB.” slip op. at 19

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

    “(d) Limitation 7h: Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation 7h are insufficient because they fail to address the limitation as written and improperly incorporate previous arguments by reference. For example, Petitioner did not map the recited “group identifier” when opposing Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend. See Opp. 16–17. In its Sur-reply, Petitioner contends that limitation 7h’s requirement of transmitting the group identifier was previously “set out in Patent Owner’s prior papers,” but does not refer to any specific papers or exhibits. Pet. Surreply 11–12. We decline to search for and piece together Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to develop a persuasive theory of unpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. section 42.6(a)(3). Petitioner similarly failed to address adequately where Lee discloses or suggests the recited “compressed format” and “plural parameters.” See Opp. 16–17. Aside from the above concerns, we also do not see sufficient explanation with respect to limitation 7h’s requirement that the transmitting by broadcast be based on a comparison of the value tag. Petitioner argues that, because Patent Owner does not dispute limitation 7g, “it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the same value tag[] to determine the system information broadcast in Lee’s compressed format embodiment.” Pet. Sur-reply 12. This conclusory statement is not supported by any citations to evidence and was improperly introduced in the Sur-reply. Moreover, whether it was obvious to determine what system information is broadcast is not commensurate with the claim scope because limitation 7h requires that the broadcasting (not the broadcast content) be based on a comparison of the value tag. See supra III.B.4 and IV.B. Further, we are not persuaded that Lee’s transmitting by broadcast is” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,841,958 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,841,958
• Inergy Technology, Inc. v. Force Mos Technology Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not proven unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish the claimed epitaxial layer or the required coverage of the trench sidewalls.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as having “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37, 57). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 6. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by unopposed declaration testimony and appears to be consistent with the disclosures of the ’634 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Ex. 1001, 1:6–2:33 (describing the invention and related art in terms of integrated circuit design and fabrication); see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1–6 (Hirler); Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1–37 (Kobayashi); Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 2–29 (Shiraishi). Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner argues that “the sidewalls of said trenches in said base layer are covered” should be construed to mean that “the entire sidewalls of” those trenches are covered. Pet. 18–19. We refer to this as “the sidewall limitation.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the disclosure and file history of the ’634 patent support its position on the sidewall limitation. Id. Patent Owner, for its part, observes that, after the filing of the Petition. two District Courts adopted the construction proposed by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2010, 6–9; Ex. 2011, 23). Patent Owner also agrees to apply Petitioner’s construction for purposes of this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that an express construction of the sidewall limitation is necessary to this Decision, id., and adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition because it is supported by the record. No other claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “On this record, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any claim is unpatentable under any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 of the ’634 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Alternatively, even if we set aside that timing issue, Dr. Liu’s bare opinion, advanced for the first time during cross-examination, that an epitaxial layer is “obvious” from Hirler’s disclosure is inadequate to support the challenges. Id. at 24–25. We accord little weight to Dr. Liu’s opinion because it is conclusory. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). In any event, Petitioner does not meet, on this record, the “high standard” required to establish an inherent disclosure of an epitaxial layer in Hirler. PO Resp. 24.6 Dr. Liu opined for the first time during cross-examination “that it would have been impossible to create Hirler’s more lightly doped n- drift zone layer on top of its more heavily doped n+ substrate layer other than via epitaxy.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 2014, 164:16– 165:20). But Patent Owner effectively refutes that proposition with evidence that such a layer “could be created by counter-doping,” even if, as Dr. Liu contends, counter-doping may have been less ideal due to “disadvantageous mobility.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 133; Ex. 2014, 166:15–167:8).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,629,634 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,629,634
• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. NEC CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01239 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14–18, 20–23, and 25–29 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed code-rate determination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by the testimony of Dr. Reader, argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, a related field, and 2–3 years’ experience researching, designing, or developing content delivery systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 67–69). Petitioner further argues “[o]ne having less education but more practical experience, or more education and less experience, might also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition or offer an alternative level or skill in the art. PO Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 14; Ex. 2012). Instead, “[f]or the purposes of this PO Response only, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of POSITA.” Id. Thus, on this record, the parties agree upon the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, and this level is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’101 patent and the prior art references that disclose content delivery systems. For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “the gap between the playback deadline and the target schedule, (td(n) − tT(n)), is the target buffer duration, i.e., ‘the desired client buffer duration (in client time).’” Id. at 22–23 (quoting Chou ¶ 74). Petitioner also argues that “in efforts to match upper bound tb(n) to target schedule tT(n), Chou takes into consideration the time duration between target schedule tT(n) and the playback deadline td(n).” Thus, it appears Petitioner assembles three separate and distinct time intervals from Chou’s timing diagrams and equations to construct one contiguous time interval equivalent to claim 1’s remaining time. However, Chou does not recognize the time interval that Petitioner posits, and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that this combined time interval exists as a teaching in the prior art and is used as part of any step or decision involved in determining the code rate. As admitted by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Reader, Petitioner’s analysis “used the claims as a road map to find limitations in the prior art.” Ex. 2015, 76:4–9 (Reader Deposition Transcript). See also Tr. 28:20–31:2 (Petitioner’s response to whether identification of and integration of separate time ranges described by Chou is hindsight reconstruction, Petitioner argues Chou’s device operates such that code rate is based on remaining time). Under the circumstances, this is improper because Petitioner and Dr. Reader do not justify this combination of separately identified time ranges except based solely on hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. However, even if that were not the case, we are not persuaded that Chou or the other asserted prior art references suggest using the combined time interval td(n) − ta(n) as the basis for any decision related to determining the code rate.” slip op. at 37

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

    “d) Analysis In our Institution Decision, although expressing some uncertainty with respect to certain of Patent Owner’s arguments on the preliminary record then before us, “we [were] not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that [(1)] Wang teaches [1d]’s code rate” (Dec. 53 (citing Pet. 62–65) or (2) “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chou and Wang” (id. at 54 (citing Pet. 74)). Petitioner does not dispute those determinations in its Reply or otherwise. Furthermore, Petitioner does not address or otherwise dispute Patent Owner’s arguments challenging the asserted obviousness of claims 1, 4–6, 10–16, and 19–26 over the combined teachings of Chou and Wang. Thus, for at least the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to show that (1) one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Chou and Wang or (2) the combined teaching of Chou and Wang renders limitation 1(d) obvious. e) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Chou and Wang.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 8,752,101 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,752,101
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Corrigent CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00839 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–26 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish the claimed LAG use between MPLS switches or explain how the references would be combined.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Consistent with our Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, apart from the phrase “at least” modifying the number of years of professional experience. See Dec. 17–18. As we previously explained, inclusion of such qualifiers renders the articulation vague by being open-ended thus encompassing the level of experience of an expert, someone with more than ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 18. Petitioner’s articulation otherwise appears consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) and related cases. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that precedent, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Neither party proposes any express claim constructions. Pet. 4; PO Resp. 3. Based on the parties’ arguments, we see no need to expressly construe any terms to resolve the dispute 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 10

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

    “Pet. Reply 10–11. Despite Petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated by knowledge of Rabie to combine the teachings of RFC 3209 and Raz at the time of the invention of the ’602 patent. First, the ’602 patent claims a priority date of May 6, 2005, which is not challenged by Petitioner (see Pet. 3), whereas Rabie was published more than two months later. Ex. 1021, code (65). Moreover, the question is not whether it may have been known at the time of the invention that a LAG could be used between switches, but rather whether the combined teachings of RFC 3209 and Raz would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a LAG between switches, as claimed, when neither RFC 3209 nor Raz teaches such usage or suggests the existence of a problem that such usage would solve. We are not persuaded that they would.” slip op. at 36

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot reached

    “Pet. Reply 10–11. Despite Petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated by knowledge of Rabie to combine the teachings of RFC 3209 and Raz at the time of the invention of the ’602 patent. First, the ’602 patent claims a priority date of May 6, 2005, which is not challenged by Petitioner (see Pet. 3), whereas Rabie was published more than two months later. Ex. 1021, code (65). Moreover, the question is not whether it may have been known at the time of the invention that a LAG could be used between switches, but rather whether the combined teachings of RFC 3209 and Raz would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a LAG between switches, as claimed, when neither RFC 3209 nor Raz teaches such usage or suggests the existence of a problem that such usage would solve. We are not persuaded that they would.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,118,602 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,118,602

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.