• Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12

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

    “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,298,166
• Siemens Mobility, Inc. / Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. et al. v. Metrom Rail, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00468 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable; claims 17–20 are not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove the asserted grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 37) (emphases added). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s approach expansively includes anyone working on collision avoidance and does not acknowledge that the railroad industry specifically is resistant to change and innovation. Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 40). Accordingly, Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art also would be characterized as “reluctant to innovate, a characteristic of this industry.” Id. at 5.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 1–6; Ex. 2019, 1–4; Ex. 1054, 125:20–141:7). Petitioner argues that “Dr. Cooklev’s analysis is legally insufficient because he assumed that any product that met a claim was in fact coextensive with it, regardless of whether it had additional features,” “boil[ing] coextensiveness down to infringement.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1051, 117:5–10). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s only evidence that unclaimed features are irrelevant to AURA’s success is Dr. Cooklev’s conclusion, which is factually insufficient as it is based entirely on conversations with Messrs. Gunther and Marchi, without independent analysis. Id. (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 41).” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 1–6; Ex. 2019, 1–4; Ex. 1054, 125:20–141:7). Petitioner argues that “Dr. Cooklev’s analysis is legally insufficient because he assumed that any product that met a claim was in fact coextensive with it, regardless of whether it had additional features,” “boil[ing] coextensiveness down to infringement.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1051, 117:5–10). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s only evidence that unclaimed features are irrelevant to AURA’s success is Dr. Cooklev’s conclusion, which is factually insufficient as it is based entirely on conversations with Messrs. Gunther and Marchi, without independent analysis. Id. (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 41).” slip op. at 26

  • Strike new argumentDenied

    “Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike Exhibit 1060 and portions of Petitioner’s Reply is denied.” slip op. at 78

  Patent outcomesUS 9,043,131 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,043,131
• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2023 · PGR2022-00023 · APJ Robert A Pollock · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 2, 3, 5, 14, 26, 27, and 30 unpatentable for lack of written description, but did not find claims 1, 6, and 25 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner did not expressly recite hematological malignancies, Petitioner did refer to expertise in clinical oncology and cancer biology, which would encompass the blood cancers recited by Patent Owner. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We find that Dr. Gordon and Dr. Sharman are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 8– 19; Ex. 2008, ¶¶ 11–24.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Dr. Sharman’s statements and deposition testimony have substantially greater credibility than Dr. Gordon’s statements and deposition testimony based on Dr. Sharman’s significantly greater relevant experience in treatment and study of hematological cancers using chemotherapeutic agents and based on Dr. Sharman’s superior recollection and more complete analysis of the record found in the ’942 patent. In particular, we found Dr. Gordon’s statement that no example “includes” every element of claim 1 factually incorrect as contradicted by at least Figure 2 of the ’942 patent where the ordinary understanding of includes to mean encompasses is used. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 131. Ebit Sys. Am., LLC v. Thales Visonix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The PTAB [i]s entitled to weigh the credibility of the witnesses ....”).” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not identify any issue relating to the preamble that needs to be addressed to resolve the sole written description challenge and the parties do not dispute that the transitional term “comprising” is “inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.” Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. US. Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We therefore find that there are no terms that need claim construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateWritten description inadequateMixed

    “We find that Figure 2 of the ’942 patent and the associated example provide literal and express descriptive support for claim 1 of the ’942 patent. As descriptive support for claim 1, the ’942 patent teaches treatment of leukemia or lymphoma, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (Ex. 1001, 16:21–22), by orally administering the Bcl-2 inhibitor GDC-0199 (Ex. 1001, 17:16) in escalating doses of 50 mg per day during a first week and 100 mg per day during a second week (Ex. 1001, Figure 2). Claim 1 of the ’942 patent, as written, does not exclude performance of the complete combination therapy shown in Figure 2. Rather, the reasonable understanding of the term “comprising” in claim 1 encompasses monotherapy with GDC-0199 alone and combination therapy with obinutuzumab. Both embodiments are described in the Specification. As Patent Owner points out, the ’942 Specification is replete with disclosures to administer GDC-0199 by itself to a patient, stating” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,993,942 mixed
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,993,942
• Pelican Biothermal, LLC v. Va-Q-Tec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · PGR2021-00085 · APJ Barry L Grossman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the motion to amend but held amended claim 64 unpatentable as anticipated by NanoCool 98596-type products and obvious over the cited combinations; all other amended claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that amended claim 64 is unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Non-Contingent Motion to Amend is granted for claims 64 and denied for all other amended claims; and” slip op. at 77

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A. Status as Prior Art Is a Substantive Issue, Not an Evidentiary Issue. A motion to exclude is not an appropriate mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of evidence, such as whether a reference qualifies as prior art, or the proper weight that should be afforded an argument. See Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, Paper 113, 4, 8–9 (PTAB September 3, 2015); PTAB Consol. Trial Practice Guide 79 (Nov. 30 Mr. Zumwalt testifies that other NanoCool products, designated by product number 85430 and 98630, also have the same configuration as the 98830 product and are made by the same process. Thus, “the 98830, 85430, and 98630 products can be collectively referred to as ‘98830-type’ products all having the same relevant design.” Ex. 1030 ¶ 17. 2019) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact. A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence—arguments regarding weight should appear only in the merits documents.”); Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2017-02187, Paper 42,17 (PTAB May 21, 2019) (status as prior art “is a substantive issue, not an evidentiary issue.”) Thus, whether the NanoCool 98830 product is prior art is not the proper basis for Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude evidence concerning the NanoCool 98830 product.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Harber provide any analysis of the factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill, identified above, to support their conclusory statements. We give Mr. Harber’s conclusory testimony minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to which we have been directed of the need for specific education or experience in biological or chemical technologies related to the claimed containers and inserts.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and at least two to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [insulated shipping containers] depending on education level.” Pet. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Exhibit 1002 is the Declaration testimony of Mr. Paul Haber. Mr. Harber actually states a slightly different level of ordinary skill. Mr. Harber testifies: The hypothetical POSITA would have: (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and have at least three to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [Insulated Shipping Containers][29]. Such a person may also have (ii) a higher level degree, such as a PhD and/or Master’s degree in engineering, or related sciences, and have at least two to three years of experience in designing and testing ISCs. 29 See Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. Ex. 1002 ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Mr. Harber also testifies that “[t]hese descriptions are approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,766,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,766,685
• Gen Digital Inc. v. Kajeet, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00001 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–15, 18–21, and 27–29 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 2 is not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend is denied for claims 31 and 35–45 and dismissed for claim 32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Putzolu. We are also persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view of Putzolu’s teachings, to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Putzolu.” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “4. Putzolu and Bhat are Analogous Art Patent Owner contends that Putzolu and Bhat cannot be considered in” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “his analysis suffers from the same deficiencies as Patent Owner’s arguments and thus fails to sufficiently explain and support his conclusion on this point. See Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 32–40. Moreover, Mr. Sharma testifies that the term “communication device” is “broader” than the term “computing device” because a “communication device . . . might not do any computing,” and we find this to lack credibility. Id. ¶ 36; Ex. 1017, 34:9–35:12. This testimony is premised on Mr. Sharma’s assumption that a “computing” device must have “much more processing and intelligence on that device beyond just transmitting data” (Ex. 1007, 34:25–35:1), but this assumption is neither” slip op. at 16

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

    “4. Support in the Original Disclosure A motion to amend may not introduce new matter. 35 U.S.C.” slip op. at 68

  Patent outcomesUS 8,667,559 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,667,559
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00641 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 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 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that Hebinuma teaches the oval trenches recited in claim 6. See Ex. 1027, Fig. 9. In addition, we agree that Petitioner’s proposed combination would have been obvious because it amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known element for another, i.e., Hebinuma’s elliptical trenches for Torii’s rectangular ones. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Thus, with the analysis outlined above, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered combination would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See id. at 418. Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00631 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “petition in IPR2022-00631 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd, IPR2022-00631 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 1, 2 (petition), 4 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00631 and granted BMW’s motion for joinder. Paper 28 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). Similarly, General Motors LLC (“GM”) filed a petition in IPR2022-00641 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd., IPR2022-00641 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 2 (petition), 3 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00641 and granted GM’s motion for joinder. Paper 29 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). VW and Patent Owner then reached a settlement and this proceeding was terminated only as to VW. Paper 30 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2022). Accordingly, we refer to BMW and GM, collectively, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 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 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it mischaracterizes Petitioner’s reliance on Torii. Petitioner does not rely on a single structure as disclosing both the claimed source electrode and conductive portions. Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2021-01321 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 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 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867
• Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aegis Therapeutics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01324 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 7–17 are unpatentable under §102 or §103; claims 3–6 and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “in Table 1 and the formulations of Potta claim 21 (i.e., ‘from about 0.1% w/w to about 15% w/w epinephrine or a salt thereof’), because such formulations would elicit the desired biological or medicinal response.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 272. Dr. Weinstein provides an essentially identical opinion. Ex. 1003 ¶ 286. Neither declarant supports their opinion with any explanation as to why the Potta formulations would provide the claimed plasma epinephrine concentration or elicit a biological or medicinal response. Accordingly, we do not credit these opinions, and determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that Potta inherently anticipates claim 3. See n re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”).” slip op. at 29

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof. We agree with Patent Owner that “[n]o bright line rule prohibits the consideration of post-priority date evidence,” and that such evidence is permissible in certain contexts. Opp. 2–3. On this record we do not find that there is sufficient cause to exclude the challenged exhibits, because any consideration by the Board of these exhibits has taken into account their alleged post-priority date status. Thus, we do not find that maintaining the exhibits in this proceeding results in any unfair prejudice to Petitioner, or that the exhibits have confused the issues before us. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude.” slip op. at 73

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “For the above reasons, on the full trial record we determine that” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,682,414 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,682,414
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2023 · IPR2020-00052 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1 and 17–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Vehviläinen; the Board did not reach anticipation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit. Netflix, 2022 WL 2298983 at *1. The Federal Circuit vacated our Decision as to claims 1 and 17–19 and remanded for further consideration of whether claims 1 and 17–19 are unpatentable in light of the court’s construction of a disputed limitation recited in claim 1. Id. at *7. The Federal Circuit affirmed our Decision as to claims 2 and 4, and thus, those claims are not before us on remand. Id. The parties proposed filing a joint brief, with six pages per side, limited to identifying the issues that remain on remand and identifying relevant portions of the existing record, without submitting any new evidence or arguments, and we authorized the joint brief. Paper 87; Ex. 1028. Accordingly, the parties filed a joint brief. Paper 88 (“Joint Brief”). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude, in view of the Federal Circuit’s claim construction and the complete record before us, that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 17–19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

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

    “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Neither of those exceptions apply here, and for the reasons below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “selecting a filter to apply” excludes determining whether or not to apply a given filter. We begin with the claim language at issue. TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). When considering the language of the claim overall, the usage of “selecting a filter” in the claims does not in any way indicate whether the filter has to be selected from among multiple filters. Claim 1 recites “selecting a filter to apply to determined level of detail.” Ex. 1001, 13:20–22 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that “the claim language confirms that ‘selecting a filter’ means choosing from a number of alternative filters, not merely deciding whether or not to apply a filter,” (PO Resp. 34), but we see nothing in the claim language that suggests such a requirement. Patent Owner also points us to claim 19, arguing that selecting is not merely deciding whether to apply a filter, “since that determination is already made in [c]laim 19 by virtue of the initial sub-step of ‘exceed[ing] the threshold.’” Id. Again, we see nothing in claim 19 that suggests the determination of the threshold being exceeded requires a specific manner of filter selection. Instead, similar to claim 1, claim 19 recites: “when the level of detail exceeds the threshold, selecting a filter to apply to predetermined pixels.” Ex. 1001, 16:8–9. Thus, we are not persuaded that the claim language necessarily requires selecting a filter from among multiple filters. slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “because Vehviläinen performs additional analysis before selecting a moderate or high activity filter, it does not teach selecting from among multiple filters. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation, and even if we did, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have easily modified Vehviläinen’s filter selection to use a single area, e.g., the smooth area of Figure 5A, and a decision branch based on the level of detail for that single area. Vehviläinen discloses that “increasing the amount of selection branches makes the system more adaptive to the nature of the blocking effect but also increases control logic.” Ex. 1004, 8:15–27. Vehviläinen states that “[a] good embodiment,” but of course, “the invention can be utilized with less than three branches.” Id. at 8:18–21. Dr. Bove testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to reduce complexity and the required control logic by using fewer branches, as taught by Vehviläinen, including for example just one branch, particularly for applications running on performance-constrained platforms such as low-end computer processors or mobile platforms, which often had constraints on thermal dissipation, power consumption, and cost.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 120 (citing Ex. 1004, 11:7–22). He further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to determine the level of detail for just the ‘smooth’ area and then select the smooth filter, if the area is smooth, or the high-activity filter otherwise.” Id. Dr. Bove illustrates that modification with the following pseudocode: if ( IsSmooth (Figure_5A) == TRUE) { Select (SmoothFilter); } else { Select (HighActivityFilter); } Id. He further testifies that such a modification would have been obvious and well within [a person of ordinary skill in the art’s] level of skill, and [such a person] would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that [the] modification involves a simple reordering of elements taught by Vehviläinen, the fact that Vehviläinen expressly teaches the have had with these basic filtering and thresholding techniques. Id. On this aspect, we credit Dr. Bove’s testimony because it is based on the express teachings of Vehviläinen and addresses a straightforward modification in view of those teachings.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “a) Patent Owner Has Not Established that It is Entitled to a Presumption of Nexus We determine that Patent Owner has not demonstrated a nexus between the evidence presented and claims 1 and 17–19. Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence are directed broadly to the DivX6 codec’s deblocking scheme and not specifically to the deblocking aspects covered by the challenged claims. We agree with Petitioner that the claimed features constitute only a small part of the commercial product and the two are far from being coextensive. See Pet. Reply 31 (citing Ex. 1017, 133:10–24; Ex. 1018, 34:4–35:1). As Dr. Bajaj explained, the “DivX [codec] included a lot of things” other than deblocking, and the DivX documentation details “only a fraction of the things that were there in the codec.” Ex. 1017, 133:10–24.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 8,139,651 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,139,651

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.