- Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2026 · IPR2025-00247 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under any of six obviousness grounds because Truitt did not teach or suggest the claimed severity calculation and index, and the Mumford combinations lacked the required sensor disclosures.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner filed an authorized Motion to Terminate, alleging that Petitioner failed to name its corporate parent, Resmed Inc., as a real party in interest. Paper 29. Petitioner filed an opposition. Paper 31. Patent Owner filed a reply. Paper 32. We denied the Motion to Terminate. Paper 40.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“disorder symptoms” require a “quantitative” calculation or use of an algorithm, we also disagree. See PO Resp. 14–16. First, nothing in the language of the claims themselves describes or requires a “quantitative” calculation or an algorithm. See generally Ex. 1001, 23:6–26:59. To be sure, the ’029 patent discloses embodiments that use known algorithms to “quantify the level of severity of the subject’s sleeping disorder or symptoms.” See, e.g., id. at 20:16–19. But the Specification does not require an algorithm. The Specification also indicates that quantification is merely “preferable” (i.e., not required), and is merely one embodiment. See, e.g., id. at 19:8–12 (“The signals from the one or more sensors used in various embodiments of the present invention are preferably analyzed using a processor and software that can quantitatively estimate or determine the severity of the subject’s sleeping disorder or symptoms.”) (emphasis added), 4:51–59 (“Finally, in still another embodiment, the present invention includes a sleeping disorder treatment system comprising a device for diagnosing and creating a quantitative output of a level of severity of a subject’s sleeping disorder or symptoms . . . .”) (emphasis added); see also Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:3–59 and 19:8–12 and stating that the ’029 patent lists “numerous embodiments where only one of seven include a quantitative assessment”). Elsewhere, the Specification more generally states that signals from sensors are “analyzed to determine the level of severity of the symptoms,” without specifying that such analysis must be “quantitative” or performed by an algorithm. See Ex. 1001, 3:41–44. In view of these disclosures, Patent Owner does not persuade us to adopt its narrowing claim construction. Indeed, our reviewing court has “repeatedly warned against confining the claims” to specific embodiments disclosed in the Specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. Patent Owner’s reliance on a prior Board decision in PGR2024- 00012, which related to the parent of the ’029 patent, is unavailing. See PO Resp. 15–16. We agree with Petitioner that in the cited case, “[t]he Board made no findings about the meaning of the term calculating ‘the data of a severity of the sleep disorder symptoms of the subject’ for claim construction.” Reply 8. Indeed, neither party offered any claim construction, and the Board determined that no claim construction was necessary for purposes of that decision. See ResMed Corp., PGR2024- 00012, Paper 7 at 8. The page of the decision Patent Owner cites addresses written description support in the specification for the claims challenged in that PGR, not claim construction. See id. at 16. In any event, the cited decision is a decision on institution. The Board’s statements there are, by nature, preliminary findings and conclusions based on a preliminary record, and are not binding here. For at least the above reasons, Patent Owner does not persuade us to adopt its narrowing claim construction and we find that the term “data of a severity” does not need construction because the words of the term are clear on their face.” slip op. at 31
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“skilled artisan would have incorporated only portions of Mumford’s algorithm into Truitt’s PAP (i.e., only those portions related to “the detection of sleep disordered events” and not the portions of the algorithm related to “determin[ing] sleep stage”) comes too late because this argument was not in the Petition. See, e.g., Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286–87 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (rejecting petitioner’s “attempts to cure the petition’s deficiencies in its subsequent briefing to the Board”). The Petition does not discuss modifying Mumford’s sleep efficacy algorithm before incorporating it into Truitt’s PAP device or incorporating only certain features of the algorithm. Indeed, the Petition and Dr. Kirkness rely on Mumford’s ability to detect sleep arousals when mapping Mumford to the claimed “data of a severity” and “index.” See Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1003 (Kirkness Decl.) ¶¶ 323–325. Mumford discloses that the mask electrodes detect arousals. See Ex. 1009 (Mumford) 2:4–10, 11:39–48. The same lack of disclosure plagues Petitioner’s belated Reply argument that Truitt’s ports 74 and 76 can incorporate electric sensing elements that would have functioned similar to Mumford’s electrodes. See Reply 22. The Petition did not mention ports 74 and 76 or otherwise suggest that a skilled artisan would have added functionality similar to Mumford’s electrodes to Truitt’s PAP, and we find that it is too late on Reply for Petitioner to posit this modification.” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This is especially applicable to Dr. Jafari’s opinions. His declaration was not prepared for this proceeding and thus Dr. Jafari was not subject to cross examination in this proceeding. See Reply 6 n.3. Moreover, Dr. Jafari was not opining on claim construction; rather, he was addressing the alleged indefiniteness. See Ex. 2020 (Jafari Decl.) 12 (heading addressing definiteness), ¶¶ 41–42, 46. Additionally, paragraphs 41–42 of Dr. Jafari’s declaration discuss claim terms phrases in a different patent (US 11,375,921), which explicitly include the terms “quantified” and “quantitative.” See Reply 6–7; Ex. 2020 (Jafari Decl.) ¶ 34. For at least these reasons, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that Dr. Jafari’s testimony is applicable here. Further, regarding the portion of Patent Owner’s proposed construction reciting “the degree of deviation from the baseline characteristics of a patient without sleep disorder symptoms,” Dr. Borkholder does not do his own analysis, but instead simply states that he “agree[s] with the litigation claim construction opinions of Dr. Jafari.” Ex. 2019 (Borkholder Decl.) ¶ 53. This is insufficient, and thus we do not credit Dr. Borkholder’s testimony regarding claim construction. We instead credit Dr. Kirkness’s statement that “[s]everity data is frequently calculated as the deviation from baseline characteristics of the patient himself, not a generic person ‘without sleep disorder symptoms.’” Ex. 1071 (Kirkness Reply Decl.) ¶ 13; Reply 9. As Dr. Kirkness explains, and Patent Owner does not dispute (see generally Sur-reply), “[t]he ‘baseline characteristics of a [generic] patient without sleep disorder symptoms’ would be irrelevant to any particular patient with their own unique breathing patterns and sleep disorder symptoms.” Ex. 1071 (Kirkness Reply Decl.) ¶ 13 (second alteration in original). For at least these reasons, we reject Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 11,872,029 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,872,029 - Prime Time Toys LLC / Prime Time Toys Ltd. et al. v. Spin Master, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2023-01461 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a sufficient motivation to combine Peev and Spitballs, including with Moorhouse.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties do not address the adopted level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or equivalent, with at least one year of relevant experience designing projectile launching systems but would also be a member of a team, which would include a person with a chemical engineering), or has at least one year experience working with materials for use in consumer products and that “equivalent work experience may substitute for educational experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 21–22 (quoting Ex. 1015, 7–8); see also Ex. 1016 ¶ 55 (stating that “Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s definitions of the [person of ordinary skill in the art] are similar, and my opinions in this Declaration would not change if I used Patent Owner’s definition of the [person of ordinary skill in the art] rather than Petitioner’s definition”). We find that the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’255 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any interpretation for any claim term. Pet. 23; see PO Resp. Petitioner notes that the ALJ in the ITC proceeding construed two terms used in the ’282 and ’683 patents, specifically “super absorbent polymer” and “a firing mechanism that directly applies a force to the ammunition.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1015, 12, 14). Based on the full record, we determine that no term requires express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to 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 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“we give little weight to the opinion of Dr. Courtney on whether Spitballs would have been considered liquid filled by one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 15–16; PO Sur-reply 18; Ex. 1037 ¶ 55; Ex. 2121, 61:12–13; see also PO Sur-reply 14–15 (arguing that Dr. Courtney does not meet the adopted level of ordinary skill in the art). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s list of “rubber, cork, foam, and soft plastics, such as SAPs” “does not exclude all of the other types of materials Petitioner failed to address—e.g., the gelatin materials used to make paintballs.” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2117, 1). The “openended” list “has no meaningful evidentiary support” because the cited paragraphs from its declaration “make no reference at all to potential airsoft ammunition.” Pet. 38; PO Resp. 24; Ex. 1016 ¶ 77; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 36–39, 46– 48. Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Reitman also “acknowledged that airsoft considerations are beyond the scope of her testimony.” Ex. 2030, 117:17– 118:20. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s list would include “countless distinct polymers.” PO Resp. 25; Ex. 2120, 27–28.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In other words, Petitioner does not squarely address the testimonial evidence that the softness of Spitballs would not have been equated with safety, because of its higher weight and kinetic energy. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 44–55. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not assert fragmentation and deformation would have overcome the greater kinetic energy of the heavier Spitballs, and that Petitioner’s declarant admitted such calculation was not done. PO Sur-reply 7 (citing Ex. 2121, 48:11–49:7); Ex. 2121, 48:11–49:7 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that calculations of how much kinetic energy is absorbed when Spitballs bounce or explode were not done). Petitioner’s declarant also identified that back splatter can create an additional safety concern. Ex. 2121, 101:14–104:4. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner failed to discuss the deformation and fragmentation of Spitballs in its Petition and declarations. PO Sur-reply 6 (citing Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 1037 ¶ 43). We also agree that Petitioner did not explain how one of ordinary skill in the art could have reliably assessed the safety of Spitballs and airsoft rounds. Id.; see also Ex. 2121, 47:1–48:10 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that experimentation would be the best way to quantify how much kinetic energy is absorbed through deformation and fragmentation of a given projectile). focused on the mass and diameter calculations provided by Petitioner’s declarant, and Petitioner has the burden to analyze a projectile other than the one disclosed in Spitballs, not Patent Owner. PO Sur-reply 10–11 (citing Pet. Reply 13; Ex. 1017 ¶ 67; Ex. 2015 ¶ 59). Petitioner failed to do such an analysis of a 6mm Spitball or SAP projectile. Regarding Petitioner’s reliance on deposition testimony from the ITC proceedings, as argued by Patent Owner, its declarant agreed that making ammunition softer would make injury less likely, if all other parameters were equal, not larger and heavier like a substitution with Spitballs. PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Pet. 37; Ex. 1004, 531:25–532:9; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 60–61); Ex. 1017 ¶ 67 (Petitioner’s declarant opining that Spitballs can “grow up to 200 times their original size” to reach a mass of 1.844g); Ex. 1037 ¶ 39 (Petitioner’s declarant agreeing that “when all other variables are held constant, heavier is less safe, meaning injury potential is increased”); Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 54–59 (Patent Owner’s declarant opining that heavier and softer ammunition can pose more injury risk); Ex. 2016, 11 (indicating that airsoft ammunition typically comes in weights from 0.12g to 0.25g). We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to prove that” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,596,255 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,596,255 - Synaffix B.V. v. Hangzhou Dac Biotech Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2025 · IPR2022-01531 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 29–31 are unpatentable; claims 25 and 32–34 were not shown unpatentable, and the motion to exclude was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- RemandOther
“review of claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24–26, and 29–34 of the ’682 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”), 1, 3. Patent Owner, Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”). We initially determined that the information presented in the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and did not institute inter partes review. Paper 17. Petitioner requested Director review of our decision denying institution (Paper 18 (“Request”)). The Director delegated review of the decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”). Paper 19. Patent Owner was granted the option to file a response to Petitioner’s Request (Paper 22 (“Request Resp.”)). The Delegated Review Panel vacated our decision and remanded the case to this panel with a revised claim construction for claim 1. Paper 23 (“DRP Dec.”). On August 30, 2024, we instituted an inter partes review after remand from the Director. Paper 25 (“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner subsequently filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 31, “Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 36, “Reply”), Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 44, “Sur-reply”), and Petitioner filed a Sur-sur-reply (Paper 48, “Sur-sur-reply”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsOther
“I. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1089 and 1090. Paper 50. As we did not rely on either of Exhibits 1089 or 1090 in deciding this matter, Patent Owner’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 96
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableMixed
“For these reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments and cited evidence also” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“function as R2, and the ethyl group may function as R4, which can be a linear alkyl having 1–6 carbon atoms. We note that claim 3 permits R5 and R6 to be absent. For these reasons, the arguments presented in the Petition demonstrate that claim 3 would have been obvious over Singh’s Compound 3 when modified in view of Harris.” slip op. at 73
Patent outcomesUS 10,131,682 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,131,682 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01235 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 6–11, and 14–16 on all proposed grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the §103 ground over Mañosa and Patel.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedPrinted publication not establishedMixed
“[T]here is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under § 42.108(c) or any other authority. . . . [T]he burden is on the petitioner to identify with particularity evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“May” expresses a possibility. The Specification reflects this interpretation of “may” when it states that “[i]n one embodiment, the organic material is not lyotropic. Thus, the organic material may not be a phospholipid.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill would understand from this that the organic material “may not be” a phospholipid if the organic material is not lyotropic. It follows that if the organic material is lyotropic, then the organic material may be a phospholipid. Reading the statement “[t]he organic material may not be . . . a phospholipid” (id. at 8:59–63) in light of the earlier stated possibility that the organic material may be a phospholipid if the organic material is lyotropic, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “may not be” as excluding phospholipids under some conditions, not under all conditions. Taking the Specification’s discussion about phospholipids as exemplifying the permissive nature of the word “may,” we are unpersuaded that in stating that “[t]he organic material may not be [PMMA], a polyvinylidene difluoride-containing polymer, such as [PVDF] or PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, or a phospholipid, such as [DHPE]’” (Ex. 1001, 8:59–63), the specification “contains a clear and unmistakable disavowal of the compounds PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE” and “disclaims the listed compounds” from the “organic material” of the claims under all conditions, as Patent Owner argues. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Moreover, the claims themselves limit the “organic material” only to the extent that it is “barocaloric cooling or heating agent” and can perform in the manner claimed. See Ex. 1001, claim 1, supra. As broadly worded, the claims do not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE per se from the group of organic materials employed by the claimed method. Adopting Patent Owner’s construction would impermissibly import a limitation (i.e., not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE) into the claims. For the reasons stated, at this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner’s broad construction of “organic material.” We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction whereby PMMA, PVDF, PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE are excluded from the scope of the claim term “organic material.” The parties are invited to address this issue further during trial, if desired. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner shows that (a) Mañosa (i.e., inorganic compounds such as Ni-Mn-In, Gd5Si2Ge2, and La-Fe-Co-Si) and (b) Patel (i.e., PVDF-TrFE- CTFE) teach materials exhibiting inverse BCEs. Pet. 59 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1007, pages 4–8; Ex. 1009, 1, 4–5; Ex. 1004 ¶ 108). In our view, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently shows (via the five reasons listed supra) why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the barocaloric cooling or heating agent of Patel for that taught in Mañosa, thereby reaching the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. Cf. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (U.S., 2007) (“The Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”)” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,230,656 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00047 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not teach flanges physically touching along a juncture.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of these cases would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and undisputed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“But Patent Owner then urges us to narrow the meaning of “portion” itself such that “channel-shaped portion” requires “all portions of the hanger which directly bound the channel that receives the structural component.” PO Resp. 19 (emphases added). Patent Owner argues the Specification makes this “clear.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–31). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 19), we find no support in claim 1 to further narrow the interpretation of “portion” in “channel-shaped portion” to mean every portion of the hanger which directly bounds the channel that receives the structural component. See Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (claim 1). We, like Petitioner, similarly find no support in the Specification or limited prosecution history (see Pet. 5–6), and Patent Owner does not direct us to any, showing that the inventor acted as its own lexicographer or disavowed any claim scope to allot this narrowed interpretation to the subject limitation. See Pet. Reply 3 (“Nowhere does the ’626 patent specification describe that all portions of the hanger directly bounding channel 52 constitute the channel-shaped portion.” (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–18; Ex. 1001, 4:39–47)); PO Resp. 19. Further, as argued by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 4–5), Patent Owner’s proposed construction limiting “portion” to “all portions” of the hanger that “directly bound the channel that receives the structural component” could cause the “channel-shaped portion” on the same physical hanger to change depending on which type of structural component an installer were to choose to use in construction: Patent Owner’s claim construction improperly focuses on the wall assembly intended to be used with the recited hanger. The claims, however, are directed to a hanger, not a wall assembly. When assessing what part of a hanger constitutes a “channel-shaped portion” and an “extension portion,” [the skilled artisan] would consider the physical features of the hanger itself and the natural divisions between those features. [The skilled artisan] would not assess the claim language and its application to the prior art by speculating how an installer might later install the hanger with a joist or an entire wall assembly, which may differ from installation to installation. Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶ 19). We find this defect further supports a broader interpretation of “channel-shaped portion” as discussed above. Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues, inter alia, that Yamaguchi teaches a joist hanger with an extension portion defining a space between its back flange and channel-shaped portion, and Bundy teaches to size a space created by an extension portion of its joist hanger to receive two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall between its back flange plane and channel-shaped portion. Pet. 16–18 (citing 1003 ¶¶ 75–78; Ex. 1007, 5:16–18, Fig. 1; Ex. 1041 (“Perspective View”; “Usage View”)); see id. at 17–18 (discussing “advantages” of two layers of 5/8" drywall as “fire resistance in a fire separation wall”). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to receive drywall between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to provide a shielded fire resistant wooden frame wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Ex. 1007, 2:10–24); see id. ([“The skilled artisan] would have optimized the size of the spacing between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall according to the size preference described by Bundy for optimal fire protection and wall integrity.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80; Ex. 1007, 5:10–22)). Petitioner concludes: This modification to Yamaguchi would have been nothing more than applying a known technique (Bundy’s spacing a hanger seat from a wall frame by distance sufficient to accommodate two 5/8”-thick-drywall sheets for fire resistance) to a similar device (Yamaguchi’s hanger having a spacing of indeterminate length) to obtain the predictable result of a firewall hanger having a space between its channel-shaped portion and a wall frame large enough for receiving drywall therebetween, thereby “protect[ing] the structural members of a building.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:18–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yamaguchi as discussed above, “because doing so would still allow Yamaguchi’s hanger to perform its intended function of securing a joist to a wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1041, 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81). Petitioner argues, “[r]ecognizing that Yamaguchi’s and Bundy’s hangers are constructed from sheet metal,” the skilled artisan “would have understood how to modify the size of Yamaguchi’s extension portions to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall while still allowing Yamaguchi’s hanger to secure a joist’s end to a frame wall.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 1007, 4:47–51); see id. at 19–20 (discussing that although “Yamaguchi’s described setting is a sill plate,” the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to use Yamaguchi’s hanger on a wood frame wall in particular so that sheathing could be installed in the space behind the joist as taught by Bundy” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–82)). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find” slip op. at 46
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“artisan would have interpreted or understood the teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, as well as of the combination of those references, are unsupported attorney-arguments. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Patent Owner cites no evidence of how the skilled artisan would have understood the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, or how such an understanding would support Patent Owner’s attorney arguments. Indeed, Patent Owner did not file any expert testimony in any of the three subject cases, despite that we must resolve the legal question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, particularly the scope and content of the prior art and any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art from the vantage point of the skilled artisan. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; see Pet. Reply 2 (“As a threshold matter, the Board’s findings in its Institution Decision should be carried forward to its final written decision because Patent Owner did not submit an expert declaration in support of its arguments.”); but see PO Sur-reply 1–4 (“[T]here is no requirement that a party rely exclusively on expert testimony in Post Grant Review proceedings or that attorney argument must be disregarded.”). To the contrary, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Fennell, persuasively testifies in detail how and why the skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and suggestions of Yamaguchi and Bundy to achieve the invention of claim 1, including the features of limitation 1.3.B. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–83, 96; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 30–40. We find Mr. Fennell’s testimony credible (and uncontroverted).” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00849 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 18, 20, 26, and 27 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedOther
“1. “safety device” For the ’745 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelOther
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various non-” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“5. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness a) Legal Standards Objective evidence of non-obviousness “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean, 699 F.3d at 1349. Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, objective evidence of nonobviousness (or “secondary considerations”) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 72
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“cited by Petitioner, we find that on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 18 and 20 based on Socwell, Magid, and Sclater.” slip op. at 82
Patent outcomesUS 10,799,745 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,799,745 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00843 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30–34, 37–39, 41, 45–49, 57, and 59 are unpatentable under § 103 over Chickering, Magid, and Sclater; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’884 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 13
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Dr. Blair to be unpersuasive, because we do not agree that the claimed running surface is required to be a surface with which a runner’s feet are intended to make contact when using a treadmill. Dr. Blair testifies that “[a] POSA would understand a treadmill’s ‘running surface’ to be a surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use” and that, because a runner’s feet is not intended to contact the belt at the area where the forward rollers meet the rearward rollers, that area is not part of the running surface. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–92. Dr. Blair’s testimony, however, contains no sufficient explanation to support his conclusion of what a POSA would understand by the term “running surface.” See id. ¶ 90. Further, Dr. Blair’s testimony is inconsistent with the language of claim 30. Claim 30 recites: “the running belt comprises a curved running surface.” Ex. 1001, 35:58–59. The language of claim 30 does not require the running belt’s running surface to only be portions that the runner typically or is intended to run upon. Dr. Blair’s testimony is also inconsistent with the ’884 patent which does not describe the running surface as being limited to the surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use. See generally id. The ’884 patent describes numerous examples of continuous running surfaces with a wide variety of” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 10,561,884 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,561,884 - Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2022-01600 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–7 and 9–20 over Olmos and Varela ’774, and claim 8 over Olmos, Varela ’774, and Oglaza.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”): would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or biomedical engineering and two or more years of experience in biomechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and/or spinal implant devices. A person could also have qualified as a POSITA with some combination of more formal education (e.g., an M.D.) and less technical experience or less formal education and more technical or professional experience in the foregoing fields, and would have had further appreciation of various technical concepts in this field. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–35). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See Response 8. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed. 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 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“We credit Mr. Drewry’s testimony that it would have been well within the ordinary skill of a POSITA to make the proposed modifications. See Ex. 1002 (Drewry Decl.) ¶¶ 34, 56–71 (discussing the qualifications of a POSITA and the types of engineering concepts the POSITA would have understood); Ex. 1030 (Drewry Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 37, 48–56, 59–66. To the extent Mr. Culbert testifies otherwise, we do not find such testimony persuasive. Indeed, Olmos itself further supports Mr. Drewry’s testimony that a POSITA would have known how to modify dimensions to fit specific needs and make changes necessary to adapt features from one embodiment to fit another. See Ex. 1006 (Olmos) ¶¶ 153, 188 (providing a range of implant sizes and noting that “specific dimensions” of any disclosed 9 Patent Owner’s citation to Mr. Drewry’s deposition transcript at 87:13– 88:9 appears to be incorrect. We understand that the intended citation is 69:34–70:7. embodiment can be varied as is apparent to a POSITA and “all features discussed in connection with any one embodiment herein can be readily adapted for use in other embodiments herein to form various combinations and sub-combinations”). Given the POSITA’s ability to make the proposed modifications, we do not find that Patent Owner’s evidence regarding the number of modifications required undermines Petitioner’s articulated reasoning for the combination.” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “no terms require constructions differing from their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner states that it “takes no position on Petitioner’s assertion because the Board need not construe any claim term to find that the Challenged Claims are not unpatentable.” Response 8. We find that for purposes of this Decision, we need not construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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))).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 10,973,649 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,973,649 - Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2022-01435 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: Chung anticipates claim 10, and the Olmos-based obviousness grounds establish unpatentability of claims 1–11.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“9 Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s Reply brief “presents copious new evidence and theories that exceed the scope of proper reply” and “[t]he Board should refuse to consider” it. Sur-reply 7–9. This generic objection to the entire Reply fails to provide adequate notice regarding which of Petitioner’s theories and arguments Patent Owner contends are allegedly new and improper. See, e.g., Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting generic objection to alleged new theories in reply as failing to provide adequate notice of which theories are allegedly new). Accordingly, we reject Patent Owner’s request that we “refuse to consider” the entirety of the Reply. Where Patent Owner’s Sur-reply raises more particularized complaints regarding Petitioner’s allegedly improper new arguments, we address those complaints as appropriate below.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Accordingly, we find Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Chung.” slip op. at 65
Patent outcomesUS 10,137,001 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,137,001 - Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01434 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 and 15 are unpatentable over Chung and Olmos-based obviousness grounds; claims 10–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach the claimed complementary relationship.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“improperly incorporates-by-reference 12 pages of expert testimony via a single sentence.” PO Sur-reply 16 n.2 (citing Pet. Reply 17, which in turn cites Ex. 1026 (Hatch Decl.) ¶¶ 49–66). We find that many of the paragraphs within the cited range (i.e., Hatch Declaration paragraphs 49–66) appear to have a tenuous connection to the proposition for which Petitioner cites these paragraphs. See Pet. Reply 17. That said, we find that paragraphs 53–55 directly relate to Petitioner’s proposition in the Reply, i.e., that “Petitioner’s experts explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would rely on a cross-sectional view over a perspective view for making the determination in question, because only the cross-sections provide the needed side view directly orthogonal to the positions of the yellow expansion portion and the end of the dovetail.” Id. Accordingly, we find that paragraphs 53–55—the only paragraphs we cite from Petitioner’s range in reaching our conclusion—are not improperly incorporated by reference into Petitioner’s Reply.” slip op. at 66
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“provide Petitioner an opportunity to respond under the new construction, and decline to strike Petitioner’s relevant argument and evidence. Cf. Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1383 (“[W]hen the Board adopts a new claim construction following institution, an IPR petitioner must have adequate notice and an opportunity to respond under the new construction.”). Like in Axonics, in its new arguments on Reply, Petitioner here relies on the same embodiment from the same prior art reference that it relies on in the Petition to support the same legal argument, i.e., that Olmos’s Figure 16 embodiment discloses the “complementary with one another” limitation of challenged claims 10– 14. See Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1384; see also Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (permitting petitioner to elaborate in reply on an unpatentability theory presented in the petition). Moreover, we permitted Patent Owner to file (and it indeed did file) a sur-reply brief and expert declaration that addressed Petitioner’s new obviousness theories. Accordingly, both parties had adequate notice of our preliminary construction and an opportunity to respond under that new construction. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to strike.” slip op. at 124
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“from the expansion portion. We agree with Patent Owner that the wording of this limitation as a whole requires that the “extension necessarily must protrude beyond a longitudinal end of the expansion portion.” Id. at 11. We also agree with Patent Owner that “[u]nder Petitioner’s tenuous theory, an extension in any direction except 90 or 180 degrees would satisfy the claim language since any such direction has a so-called ‘longitudinal component.’” Id. at 13. For these reasons, we disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the purported “longitudinal component” of Chung’s extension satisfies limitation 1[h].” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“would have been motivated to add an extension to the Figure 16 embodiment because “an integrally-formed extension advantageously requires fewer parts, which facilitates both manufacturing and use.” Pet. 118. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument is unavailing. PO Resp. 50. Petitioner’s combination entails adding an extension (from Figure 8) to an embodiment lacking one (Figure 16). We agree with Patent Owner that adding a new component (whether separately or integrally) can in some instances complicate manufacturing/assembly and increase costs. See id. (citing Ex. 2013 (Culbert Decl.) ¶ 115). Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed combination in this instance would reduce complexity or facilitate the manufacturing process. Accordingly, we do not rely on this argument offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 106
Patent outcomesUS 8,845,731 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,845,731
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.