• Digital Global Systems, Inc. v. Deepsig, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2026 · IPR2024-01358 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7–11, 15–19, 23, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4–6, 12–14, and 20–22 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach the claimed received-signal feedback and transmitter-model update.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that: Persons of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent degree and at least two years of experience working with of radio communication systems and machine learning. Additional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice-versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34). Patent Owner does not appear to challenge this level of skill. We use Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision because it appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and ’704 patent.” slip op. at 7

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

    “parameters “associated with the base station.” PO Resp. 31–32. In particular, Patent Owner argues that a transmitter “implemented in a base station” is not “associated with the base station.” Id. at 31. Petitioner argues that Patent Owner offers no reason to believe that a transmitter “implemented in a base station” is not “associated with the base station.” Pet. Reply 4–5; see also id. at 3–6 (entire argument). A plain reading of a “model associated with a base station” would encompass a model that operates in a base station. We do not see anything in the ’704 specification that would indicate “associated with” has any special meaning, or has a meaning contrary to our understanding of the plain meaning. We do not see the word “associated” outside the claims, whereas we see the word “implement” throughout the specification, generally in reference to an actual use of a model (consistent with our plain reading). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:35–39, 6:3–17, 10:55–11:3 (discussing “implementations” where the model or some other feature of the system is used in a particular way). Accordingly, we construe a model “implemented in a base station” to be “associated with the base station.”” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “scenarios” (see PO Resp. 16–21), Patent Owner argues that “Jüschke does not disclose any association of the weight or bias parameters, . . . to any deployment scenario, and . . . base station” (id. at 19). For the reasons explained in our claim construction section above, we construe “deployment scenarios” to include “inline mode” models located within a base station, according to the list of deployment scenarios set out in the ’704 patent. See Ex. 1001, 2:38–65. The in-line deployment scenario depicted in Figure 6A of the ’704 patent bears a striking resemblance to the arrangement depicted in Figure 1 of Jüschke. In both figures, the analog radio signal is fed directly into the model and then the model directly outputs the signal to the amplifier. Compare Ex. 1001, Fig. 6A, with Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. As construed, the “deployment scenarios” represent the physical configurations of the device in which the model is found, such as “in-line.” Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Jüschke’s similar in-line configuration is a “deployment scenario” as claimed because it teaches an inline model for a cellular system transmitter (i.e., base station). Pet. 26–29 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 6, 59; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 146–147); see also Ex. 1001, 2:37–41 (stating that “[t]he particular deployment scenario[] may be . . . sending a radio transmission from a cellular base station that includes the . . . model . . . in an inline mode”).” slip op. at 26

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on our claim construction analysis of claim 4, above, we agree with Patent Owner that claim 4 requires an actually transmitted signal and an update of the transmitter’s model. This claim construction eliminates Petitioner’s position regarding Holt teaching a modeled signal. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 17–23. We then turn to Petitioner’s argument that Holt teaches updating a model using an actually transmitted signal. See Pet. 59–60. There, Petitioner relies on a disclosure in Holt of an “actual communication channel 302 used to train the channel model 208.” Ex. 1006, 18:1–2. This is depicted in Figure 6 of Holt, in connection with a “fourth loss function” which is used to “train the decoder model.” Id. at 18:42–48; see generally id. at 17:58–18:51 (describing Figure 6). Whether training the channel model or the decoder model, Holt here does not disclose using the actual communication channel to train the encoder, i.e., transmitter. In sum, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art describes the claimed step of “obtaining a received radio signal,” and even if it did, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art describes the claimed step of “updating the value of the model parameters” in the manner required by claim 4. Claims 12 and 20 are nearly identical to claim 4, and Petitioner’s ground fails for similar reasons. See Pet. 76. Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 21 and 22 depend from claims 4, 12, and 20, and Petitioner’s ground fails for similar reasons as those claims. See id. at 77–80.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,018,704 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,018,704
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01281 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–15, and 17–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson; claim 8 is also unpatentable with Russell.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “been motivated to combine the teachings of Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, and Russell in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.E.2(a)–(b). Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 is unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claim would have been obvious over Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, and Russell.” slip op. at 122

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,738,471 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,738,471
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01052 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–6 and 13–16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted Watanabe combinations were unsupported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “cameras.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–38). Petitioner further contends “[a]n advanced graduate degree in the disciplines cited above may make up for the work experience indicated above.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute and applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 6. We find that Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the ’832 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Thus, we apply Petitioner’s proposal in our analysis.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we construed “determin[ing] a viewing window for the visual content as a function of progress through the progress length” as “requiring determining a viewing window for different times of the video.” Inst. Dec. 21. Neither party disputes this construction. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 1–7. We maintain this same construction.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thomason are in the same field of endeavor. Thomason describes a camera and method for correctly orientating pictures from the camera. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 2 29–40, Figs. 3a–3b. In particular, Thomason is interested in rotating and cropping images to reduce the effect of poor orientation. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 34, 36). Pacurariu likewise describes aligning and resizing/cropping of a captured image to correct poor orientation. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 3, 45–56, Figs. 5A–5C. The preponderance of the evidence also supports that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the Pacurariu’s teachings with Thomason to predictably improve Thomason. Thomason teaches correct rotation of video data and makes use of rotation sensor to correct rotated images. Pet. 19–21 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–77). Pacurariu similarly uses sensors and measures tilt angle of the camera. Id at 21–22 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–52, Fig. 6; Ex. 1002 ¶ 78). Pacurariu further teaches that its tilt data angle can be stored for each “video frame.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52). Petitioner, with support from credible testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos, explains how the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu could be successfully combined. Id. at 23 (citing, for example, Ex. 1002 ¶ 81). A person of ordinary skill in the art could have known that Thomason’s system could be improved by saving rotation data for each video frame and correcting images on a frame-by-frame basis. Id. at 23–24. The testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos is credible in this regard. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81. Petitioner and Dr. Katsaggelos explain the references’ teachings and, based on these teachings, assert that a person having skill in the art would have had reason to combine with reasonable expectation of success based on those teachings. Reason to combine may properly come from the references themselves. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (explaining reason to combine may come from “interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–81, 89–92; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 8–9, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 41, 46, 51–52, 55–57, Figs. 6, 7.” slip op. at 27

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

    “evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence of nonobviousness, also referred to as secondary considerations. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential). We first consider whether Patent Owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 33. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75).” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 11,336,832 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,336,832
• Recor Medical, Inc. / Otsuka Medical Devices Co., Ltd. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2025 · IPR2022-00431 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1–3 and 8–12 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit (Paper 33), which vacated the original Final Written Decision and remanded the proceeding to the Board. See ReCor Med., Inc. v. Medtronic Ir. Mfg. Unlimited Co., No. 2023-2251, 2025 WL 944511 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2025) (“the Appeal Decision” or “Appeal Dec.”); see also Paper 41 (copy of the Appeal Decision). The Federal Circuit’s mandate issued on May 5, 2025. See Paper 40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6, and we issue this Final Written Decision on Remand under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons below, on the complete record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unpatentability of claims 1–3 and 8–12 of the challenged patent, and we conclude that Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unpatentability of claim 4.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentable

    “and Petitioner’s rebuttal evidence. Objective evidence of nonobviousness, when present, must be considered as part of an obviousness inquiry. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of nonobviousness, may lead to a conclusion that one or more of the challenged claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 50

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “1. Claims 1–3 and 8–11 Because the obviousness ground based on Levin and Acker is dispositive as to challenged claims 1–3 and 8–11, we need not reach this additional ground as to those claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018) (holding that a petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Boston Sci. Scimed, analysis in the appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Appeal Dec. *1–*2 (summarizing grounds at issue on appeal and not discussing anticipation based on Acker). Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (stating that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding,” such as “alternative arguments with respect to claims [the Board] found unpatentable on other grounds”); SK Hynix Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2017-00692, Paper 25 at 40 (PTAB July 5, 2018) (determining all challenged claims to be unpatentable and not addressing additional grounds). 2. Dependent Claim 4 As to dependent claim 4, in the context of this ground, Petitioner relies on Acker as to the additional limitations in claim 4 in the same manner as relied on in the context of the ground based on Levin and Acker. See Pet. 73 (“The combination teaches this element for the same reasons described in [the obviousness ground based on Levin and Acker], claim 4, with the exception that [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated based on his or her knowledge of prior renal denervation work, as noted above.”). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above (see § II.C.3.c), we determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 would have been obvious based on Acker and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. G. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 12 Based on Acker, the Knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Yock Petitioner asserts that claim 12, which depends from independent claim 1, would have been obvious based on Acker, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and Yock. Pet. 12, 75; Pet. Reply 35–36. Patent Owner provides arguments addressing this ground. PO Resp. 57–60; PO” slip op. at 75

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

    “1. Independent Claim 1 Petitioner contends that Acker discloses each limitation of claim 1. Pet. 61–63; Pet. Reply 35. In the “Overview of the Ground” section, Petitioner references its proposed construction of the phrase “configured to” and states that “it is proper to consider whether the prior art is ‘capable of’ performing the recited functions, as opposed to requiring that a designer of a prior art device have actually conceived of the recited functional language.” Pet. 61. Petitioner continues: “If the PTAB agrees that this is the proper approach to claim construction, then Acker also anticipates the claims challenged in this ground.” Id. For the reasons below, we determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Acker. As to element 1d, which includes the phrase “configured to,”16 Petitioner states that Acker is capable of being used to target renal neural fibers outside of the blood vessel to thermally induce modulation of target neural fibers while protecting non-target tissue in the blood vessel wall from thermal injury for the reasons discussed under claim 1, limitation [1d] and in the section entitled “Reasonable Expectation of Success”, beginning on page 37 [of the Petition]. Pet. 62–63 (citing Daft Pet. Decl. ¶ 179) (first bracketed text added by Petitioner). Patent Owner argues that, in the context of this asserted ground based” slip op. at 71

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,629 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,629
• DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2023-00268 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, 16–18, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious over Scott; the Board did not reach the anticipation challenge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field; and at least two years of experience in the wager based gaming industry.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Petitioner states that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). 1 The parties have not directed us to any such objective evidence. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We note that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Vancura, uses essentially the same definition as Petitioner. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 33; Ex. 2007 ¶ 46. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Both parties’ witnesses interpret “fixed odds” to mean the odds/multiplier of the wager is fixed at the time the wager is placed. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 160 (“the wager on a bingo game would be a ‘fixed odds single’ wager when placed because the odds of winning are fixed” (original emphasis omitted, our emphasis added)); Ex. 2007 ¶ 135 (“‘fixed odds’ in the context of a ‘fixed odds single’ [means] a wager where a bettor is offered a multiplier for wagering on a given outcome(s), and where the multiplier and therefore the potential payout are fixed at the time the bettor places their desired wager”). It necessarily follows that the payout for the wager would also be fixed at the time the wager is placed. Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation that “single” means the wager is for the outcome of a single event, as opposed to, for example, a parlay wager that involves the outcomes of multiple events. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 19 (“[an ordinarily skilled artisan] would understand the term ‘fixed odds single’ to refer to a game where ‘the odds of winning are fixed, and the wager is on a single outcome’”). Accordingly, we interpret “fixed odds single” to mean a wager on the outcome of a single event in which the odds/multiplier is fixed at the time the wager is placed. The parties disagree, however, on whether bingo is a fixed odds single wagering event. Dr. Vancura testifies that bingo does not involve a fixed odds single wager because “[b]ingo does not have a ‘fixed odds’ payout — it has a ‘pot’ available to be won, which is either pre-determined by the operator . . . , or more commonly, depends on the number of cards in play wherein part of the purchase price of each card is contributed to a jackpot.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 136. Mr. Crevelt testifies that bingo does involve a fixed odds single wager because all bingo cards have the same chance of winning prior to initiation of the game. Ex. 1007 ¶ 160. Mr. Crevelt does not address meaningfully the fact that the odds of winning at bingo are a function of the number of cards in play—as the number of cards in play increases, the chances that another card first achieves “bingo” increase and the initial player’s chance of winning decreases. Nor does Petitioner explain persuasively how the disclosure of a fixed odds betting terminal in the ’779 patent supports its assertion that bingo is a fixed odds single wager. See Pet. Reply 20. Notably, a reference relied upon by Petitioner explains that fixed odds betting terminals host games other than fixed odds games. See Ex. 1058, 28 (explaining that fixed odds betting terminals “are machines on which can be played fixed odds and betting games”); see also Tr. 23:12–22 (Petitioner’s counsel agreeing that there has been some scope creep regarding fixed odds betting terminals such that they include games other than fixed odds single wagers). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that bingo is not a fixed odds single wager.” slip op. at 36

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “However, we agree that claim 16 recites a system where multiple participants place wagers on the same wagering event. Claim 16 uses both plural and singular terms, indicating that the recited plural terms refer to a plurality of elements and the recited singular terms refer to a single element. For example, claim 16 recites “receive, by the trading engine module, a plurality of wagers on the wagering event from the plurality of input devices via the communications interface, the plurality of wagers input by a plurality of participants via the user interfaces of respective input devices from the plurality of input devices.” Ex. 1001, 54:11–16. We interpret this language to mean that a single trading engine module receives wagers on a single wagering event from a plurality of participants each using a different input device. Scott discloses “a number of players electronically connected” where one player may sell symbols to “other players.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 96. Scott also discloses various types of games, including games typically played by more than one player. See, e.g., id. ¶ 44 (disclosing “Class II” games, keno, lottery, bingo). Thus, Scott at least suggests a system where multiple participants engage in the same game. We are persuaded that it would have been obvious to use Scott’s gaming machine in a multiplayer environment. Mr. Crevelt testifies that “it is an obvious matter of common sense to take a system that can be for use by one player and put it to use for multiple players” and “if one player is able to utilize Scott’s system described above in accordance [with] claim 1, but multiple players wanted to play, common sense dictates that such systems should be reproduced for multiple players.” Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 183–184. We agree, especially given Scott’s strong suggestion that its system may be used to host multiplayer games as noted above. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing, as it is not clear to us, and Patent Owner has not explained adequately, how reproducing Scott’s system for multiple players, as proposed by Petitioner, would not result in a multiplayer wagering system.” slip op. at 32

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

    “Additionally, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s obviousness rationales are supported by rational underpinning. Petitioner correctly notes that Scott discloses that its memory devices “may utilize various storage technologies to accomplish data storage and retrieval.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53; Pet. 84 (citing same). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that, given the widespread use of databases to store data in computer systems and computerized gaming systems in particular, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to store Scott’s player tracking account data as records in a database. See Pet. 84–85 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:19–26, 26:29–32; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 96; Ex. 1006 ¶ 53; Ex. 1007 ¶ 92); see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 103 (Dr. Vancura testifying that, in his experience, “player tracking systems store a player’s wagering information”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Scott and Mr. Crevelt’s testimony support Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,200,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,200,779
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01345 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–20 were shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum; claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum with Shakkarwar.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or explaining its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 1 For example, setting the level of skill to exactly two years of experience would not serve to automatically disqualify an expert having ten years. Kyocera Senco Ind’l Tools v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (requiring that “a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art” and stating that “it would be improper to require an expert witness to possess ordinary skill in the art and nothing more”). In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’588 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The description of “mapping” in the ’588 patent makes clear to us that it is an association of an input value from a set of input values to a corresponding output value from a set of output values. Id. at 2:44–46 (describing “the mapping table that associates non-core domain operating frequencies and corresponding interconnect operating frequencies”) (emphases added). The “association” described here in the ’588 patent is not merely describing the fact that both exist, but that knowing the value of the first causes you to know the value of the second. This is also how it is described in the claims, wherein the “mapping” is “of selectable frequencies of the graphics processing circuitry to selectable frequencies of the interconnect.” Id. at 8:63–65 (emphasis added). Or more generally, the claim recites a mapping of a frequency to a frequency. In sum, although we agree with the parties that “mapping” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification, we note that the parties appear to dispute whether the prior art teaches the claimed “mapping” based on differing understandings of the plain and ordinary meaning. Based on our analysis above, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing the ’588 patent would understand that the “mapping” limitation requires (1) frequencies mapped to frequencies and (2) that a mapping is an association of one value to a corresponding value such that knowing the graphics frequency means that you know the corresponding interconnect frequency. Further, given that the corresponding frequencies are “selectable,” we understand that to mean that there is a set of possible frequencies that are defined from which to select. Ex. 2001, 21:19–22:2. With this understanding, we can turn to the dispute over whether the prior art teaches the limitations set forth in claims 5 and 12, as no other terms require construction at this time. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenMixed

    “that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Shakkarwar teaches the claimed mapping limitation, for the following reasons. The lookup table in Shakkarwar has a list of clock speeds (frequencies) for specific devices. Ex. 1006, 7:7–10. These clock speeds represent the bandwidth needs of each individual device. Id. at 7:10–13. By looking up the bandwidth needs of each individual device in use, the system can determine the total bandwidth need. Id. at 7:5–17. For example, if one device requires 20 Megabits of data and the second device requires 10 Megabits of data, then the data rate (bandwidth) required will be 30 Megabits of data. Id. at 7:13–17. If the required bandwidth is different from the current bandwidth, then the current bandwidth must be modified. Id. at 7:18–26. Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,705,588 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,705,588
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01333 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Sutardja, Sutardja and Rychlik, or Sutardja and Carmack; the Board did not reach the Mathieson-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We decline to “throw out” Dr. Horst’s testimony for several reasons. First and foremost, Patent Owner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude his testimony, or even filed an objection. Hearing Tr. 46:19–47:1. Thus, the issue of whether the testimony should be excluded is not properly before us. Further, Petitioner asserts that “[t]his distinction is irrelevant.” Pet. Reply 2. We agree. Patent Owner has not pointed to any opinion by Dr. Horst that turns on the alleged “flaw” in the definition of the person of ordinary skill. Id. at 46:19–48:3. Finally, there is no prejudice. Patent Owner’s expert used the definition proposed by Patent Owner in his analysis. See Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25. Nor could Patent Owner show us with specificity any place in the record where resolving this dispute would make a difference in this case. Hearing Tr. 46:3–47:3. For the reasons given, we do not see the need to modify our definition of a person of ordinary skill or to exclude or give little weight to Dr. Horst’s opinions.” slip op. at 15

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

    “operating system.” PO Resp. 12–13. Relying on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Patent Owner contends that “[a]n ‘operating system’ is, and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be, ‘The software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, central processing unit (CPU) time, disk space, and peripheral devices.’” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2007, 378). Dr. Brogioli’s testimony generally supports this construction, as does Dr. Horst’s. See Brogioli Dep. 8:17–22; Horst Dep. 32:3–8. Petitioner responds that the term “should be understood in accordance with its plain meaning,” and therefore does not require construction, but does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet. Reply 2. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “operating system.” However, we do not see this construction as dispositive of the central issue of whether the operating system in Sutardja controls the transition of the cores. See Section II.D.1, infra. slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “PMS module do not ‘control’ the core switching module or the hardware on which it runs. Instead, the kernel and the PMS module only make system calls to the core switching module.” PO Resp. 27. We disagree that this is not sufficient control to meet this claim limitation. As Dr. Horst’s testimony (quoted supra) explains, the PMS module and kernel modules “trigger a transition” by generating a call to the hypervisor module or a core switching module. Horst Decl. ¶ 124. Patent Owner’s argument fails because it assumes the claims require direct control, when the claims recite no such restriction (nor have we been asked by either party to construe the claims as such).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,049,080 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,049,080
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01090 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8, 13, and 15–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over the Fells-based combinations set out in the grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 13) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “charger surface, to inductively transfer power to the receiver [of the first mobile device],” as recited in limitation 1(k). Pet. 5 (bolding omitted). Petitioner contends this term should be construed as a means-plus-function term, and that the underlined portion identified above identifies the function. Id. at 5–6. Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure is described in the Specification and in dependent claims 24 and 25. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:35–38 (“[T]he charger and or receiver can include means to provide more precise alignment between the charger and receiver coils and antennas. These can include visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist the user in alignment of parts.”); 25:56–63 (claim 24: “the means for position includes one or more magnets to position the receiver in the power transfer position”, claim 25: “means for positioning includes one or more members of a group consistent of visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist in the positioning the receiver in the power transfer position.”)). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our Decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). As stated above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contentions. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and conclude that they show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8, 13, and 15–18 of the ’349 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” Commscope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (emphasis added). This is the standard I previously applied to Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. Inst. Dec. (Fitzpatrick, J., concurring at 2). During trial, all of Petitioner’s challenges went unrebutted, including Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. See PO Resp. 1 (Patent Owner “elects to not proffer additional argument on the papers or through any hearings that may occur in this proceeding.”). Thus, because I previously determined Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17 presented compelling merits and because Patent Owner did not rebut that challenge during trial, I conclude that Petitioner has necessarily met its burden of proving claim 17 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,292,349
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01089 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over the Fells-based grounds; the Board adopted the unrebutted petition analyses.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 12) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “obvious over Fells. Pet. 7–76. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. Having considered the arguments and evidence before us, we find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 would have been obvious over Fells. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,292,349
• 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

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.