• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00712 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 were not shown unpatentable because Walker was not prior art and Kelly did not teach limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii].

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “b) Walker Priority Date Under Dynamic Drinkware, the Petitioner is required to show that “the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application.” In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner must show that (1) at least one claim of Walker is supported by its provisional (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/378,289 (the “’289PROV”) and (2) the specific subject matter relied upon as prior art is supported by the ’289PROV. Id. Petitioner does provide a detailed explanation about how the ’289PROV supports claim 1 of Walker. See Reply 5–10. However, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner fails to show that the ’298PROV provides support for the specific subject matter relied on in Walker. See Sur-Reply 3–9. Petitioner only explains how the ’298PROV discloses “predetermined criteria” but does not provide any other explanation for how the other subject matter relied on in Walker is supported by the ’298PROV. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Walker is entitled a priority date before May 1, 2003. See Riggs, 131 F.3d at 1384 (noting while “a prior art patent or published application cannot be accorded the benefit of its provisional application’s filing date absent a showing that the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application,” the challenger must also show that “the specific portions of the patent specification identified and relied on” to demonstrate purported invalidity have written description support).” slip op. at 25

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

    “evidence that Kelly teaches limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. As Patent Owner persuasively argues, “the recorded information regarding particular game play events” of limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii] refers to “memory to . . . record game play information regarding particular game play events” in limitation 1[b.ii], but Petitioner does not map “the game play events” identified in limitation 1[b.ii] to limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion, but largely reiterates its arguments from the Petition. However, none of these arguments or evidence demonstrates that the “game play events” in limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii] are same the “game play events” that are allegedly stored in limitation 1[b.ii]. Even if we accept Petitioner’s contention that it was not identifying button presses or the “game identifier,” but rather includes “game states and game events in the game process,” Petitioner provides no evidence or even arguments that what it has identified here relates to what it has identified for limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. See Pet. 29–33 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:23–24, 26:59–27:1, 32:27–33, 37:1–10, 38:66–39:7 40:33–45, 56:49–51, 57:27–33). For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches or suggests limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kelly. 2. Claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 Claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 all depend (either directly or indirectly) from claim 1. See PO Resp. 16 (explaining that the arguments for independent claim 1 also apply to the dependent claims inherent the deficiencies asserted with respect to the independent claims). We find Patent Owner’s arguments availing, as explained above. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 would have been obvious over Kelly.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “programmable variable parameter sets to achieve the mandated parameters,” we find that Patent Owner sufficiently explained “the notes from the 12/4/02 meeting reflect that the inventors proposed that their invention could raise the global payout percentage ‘to 75%’ – a mandated parameter – by ‘increas[ing] % of wins by the level 2,’ i.e., a secondary game level – a variable parameter.” See PO Resp. 28–32, 37, 38; Ex. 2016; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 23–24, 41–42; Ex. 2012 ¶ 90, 63–64. Indeed, Mr. Crevelt confirmed that that a POSITA would unequivocally regard disclosure of “win rate[s]” and “global payout percentage[s]” as disclosing the claimed “mandated parameters” that are achieved by utilizing variable parameters. See Ex. 2020, 15:7–18:4, 19:14–21:16, 24:25–25:15 (global payout percentages), 21:18– 24:24 (win rates).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 11,393,279 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,393,279
• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00708 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 were not shown unpatentable over Kelly or Walker and Schneier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. Based on the testimony of Mr. Crevelt, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering, with at least three years of experience in game development. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–65). Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Id. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted above is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’336 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the record. Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purposes of this response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed level of skill, and under any level of skill a POSITA would not understand the asserted Grounds to raise any unpatentability issue,” and “this POR and supporting declarations apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 8. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’336 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes in this case. See id. slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “b) Walker Priority Date Under Dynamic Drinkware, the Petitioner is required to show that “the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application.” In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner must show that (1) at least one claim of Walker is supported by its provisional (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/378,289 (the “’289PROV”) and (2) the specific subject matter relied upon as prior art is supported by the ’289PROV. Id. Petitioner does provide a detailed explanation about how the ’289PROV supports claim 1 of Walker. See Reply 6–12. However, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner fails to show that the ’298PROV provides support for the specific subject matter relied on in Walker. See Sur-Reply 3–8. Petitioner only explains how the ’298PROV discloses “predetermined criteria” but does not provide any other explanation for how the other subject matter relied on in Walker is supported by the ’298PROV. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Walker is entitled a priority date before May 1, 2003. See Riggs, 131 F.3d at 1384 (noting while “a prior art patent or published application cannot be accorded the benefit of its provisional application’s filing date absent a showing that the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application,” the challenger must also show that “the specific portions of the patent specification identified and relied on” to demonstrate purported invalidity have written description support).” slip op. at 24

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

    “We find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches limitation 1[f]. As Patent Owner persuasively argues, “the game play events” of limitation 1[f] refers to “game play events” in limitation 1[d], but Petitioner does not map “the game play events” identified in limitation 1[d] to limitation 1[f]. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion, but merely reiterates its arguments from the Petition. See Reply 23–24, 26. However, none of these arguments or evidence demonstrates that the “game play events” in limitation 1[f] are same the “game play events” that are allegedly stored in limitation 1[d]. Even if we accept Petitioner’s contention that it was not identifying button presses, but rather includes “game states and game events in the game process,” Petitioner provides no evidence or even arguments that what it has identified here relates to what it has identified for limitation 1[f]. See Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:23–24, 32:27–33, 40:33–45, 56:49–51). For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches or suggests limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kelly. 2. Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 all depend from claim 1. See PO Resp. 16 (explaining that the arguments for independent claim 1 also apply to the dependent claims inherent the deficiencies asserted with respect to the independent claims). We find Patent Owner’s arguments availing, as explained above. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 would have been obvious over Kelly.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,336 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,336
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 20, 2026 · IPR2025-00343 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 8–13 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish a reason to combine Bucknell’s multiplexing techniques with Eckert.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not expressly dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’138 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. a subset of radio bearers Petitioner points out that in IPR2022-01127 the Board “preliminarily determined that a subset of the plurality of radio bearers” means “less than all of the plurality of radio bearers.” Pet 12 (citing Ex. 1019, 18–19). Petitioner explains that, in the present proceeding, it has applied “the prior art in accordance with that construction; however, in view of the asserted grounds, no claim term requires express construction to find the Challenged Claims unpatentable.” Id. (citing Nidec 868 F.3d 1017). Patent Owner neither disputes the prior construction of “a subset of radio bearers,” nor offers additional constructions. See generally PO Resp. To the extent necessary, and in accordance with our prior determination, we construe “a subset of the plurality of radio bearers” to mean “less than all of the plurality of radio bearers.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “bears pointing out that the specification of the ’138 patent appears to explain what “a single allocation” means: If there are multiple QoS requirements within a single 3GPP PDP context, a single physical allocation of radio resources may be made to the UE. In this manner, a single PDP context implies a single CCTrCh. This single physical allocation of radio resources provided to a UE is shared amongst a number of services, in proportion to their respective QoS requirements, for example in proportion to the signalled weight values (Stier). Ex. 1001, 9:36–43 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Ding, explains that the “abbreviation CCTrCh was understood in the art to refer to a transport channel known as the Coded Composite Transport Channel.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 88. Dr. Ding testifies that Eckert teaches selecting data for uplink within a determined TTI and scheduling the uplink transmission on a transport channel, E-DCH, where scheduling of the E-DCH in a UE is controlled by a base station. Eckert, [0012] (“[A] new dedicated transport channel called Enhanced Dedicated Channel (E-DCH) has been introduced for this purpose. The fundamental characteristics of this new transport channel include . . . scheduling controlled by the base station, also called NodeB in UMTS…” Id. ¶ 90. In addition to Eckert disclosing a single transport channel E-DCH, Petitioner argues that Eckert discloses using a “finite quantum of physical resources” where “[t]he ’138 patent disclosure parallels Eckert, with both the E-DCH and CCTrCH transport channels relating to a UMTS uplink, employing spreading codes in code division multiple access (CDMA), and Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 3, 8, 15, 23; Ex. 1071 ¶¶ 17–20; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 6, 51). We do not need to specifically interpret this claim phrase because there is no actual dispute as to the meaning of the claim language itself and because, ultimately, the construction of this phrase plays no part in our Decision.” slip op. at 15

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “D. Ground 1: Claims 1–4 and 8–11 – Alleged Obviousness over Eckert in view of Bucknell and Lohr-1 On the complete record now before us, Petitioner has not established a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–4 and 8–11 would have been obvious over Eckert, Bucknell, and Lohr-1. For the reasons explained below we determine that Petitioner has failed to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Eckert in view of Bucknell in the manner claimed. We focus our analysis below on claim 1, and more specifically on those limitations for which the combination of Eckert and Bucknell is asserted. 1. Limitations [1.0]–[1.2] and the combination of Eckert and Bucknell The combination of Eckert and Bucknell is essential to each of Petitioner’s asserted grounds in this proceeding. Pet. 13. At the outset, we address this issue because our determination that Petitioner has failed to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Eckert and Bucknell is dispositive as to all grounds.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,292,138 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,292,138
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2026 · IPR2025-00342 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6–11 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not teach guiding a vehicle to a fixed destination or calculating the claimed optimized path from stored destination data.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “reserves consideration of discretionary issues to the Director. The relief Patent Owner requests is that the panel exercise discretion to terminate these proceedings based on actions taken in related district court proceedings as done in Hulu. Supp. PO Resp. 2. Because the basis for Patent Owner’s requested relief is discretionary, the panel lacks the authority to grant the request. In this regard, the present situation is different from that in Hulu and Sinclair Pharma Limited v. Hydrafacial LLC (IPR2025-00145, Paper 41, Squires, Feb. 12, 2026), cited by Patent Owner. In those cases, the 9 Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Director_Institution_of _AIA_Trial_Proceedings.pdf (“Director Institution Memo”). Director ordered de-institution, not the panel. The Director has not made such a determination or delegated such authority to the panel in these proceedings. Indeed, as noted above, Patent Owner has already briefed, and the Director has previously ruled on, discretionary denial issues. Paper 10. Accordingly, we decline to vacate our Institution Decision and focus our analysis on the merits of the case as presented by the parties.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. Petitioner asserts that ordinarily skilled artisans “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and four years of work experience in image processing, automated vehicle control/navigation, or a related field.” Pet. 7. Petitioner’s proposed definition, which Patent Owner does not dispute, appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’805 patent, and we adopt it here. See generally, PO Resp. Based on this record, and because there is no dispute, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’805 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Here, in our opinion, Patent Owner has shown that the Specification describes the potential destinations of a vehicle as limited to physically fixed, non-transient objects or features. PO Resp. 18–21. As an initial matter the ’805 patent is titled “Docking Assistant” and explains its purpose for guiding a “vehicle to a stop at a specific location.” Ex. 1001, codes (53), (57), Abstract. We acknowledge that claim 1 does not expressly recite that “at least one potential destination” is a fixed destination or location. See id. at 7:61– 63 (Claim 1 requiring “extracting from the acquired image data positional parameters of at least one potential destination relative to the motor vehicle;”). Yet, in the context of the relatively brief specification, there is no explanation, example, or embodiment which reasonably extends the meaning of “destination” or “potential destination” beyond a fixed location. The ’805 patent describes in the Abstract that [m]any day-to-day driving situations require that an operator of a motor vehicle guide the motor vehicle along a specific course and bring the vehicle to a stop at a specific location, for example in a parking bay or at a loading platform. Id. at code (57) Abstract. The Abstract explains in the next sentence that “[t]o assist a vehicle operator in such situations, a method and a suitable device for implementing this method, include detecting the potential target objects in the image data of an image sensor and identifying the potential target objects as potential destinations in a multi-stage exclusionary method.” Id. (emphasis added). Nowhere in this initial description of the invention, nor anywhere else that Petitioner points to, is there is expansion of the “specific location” or “potential destination” beyond a docking station or parking bay. Of course, the claim is not limited to these examples, as it would be inappropriate to read in such limitations from the Specification. See Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 771 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Acceleration again attempts to import structural limitations into claims lacking those limitations. . . . While the specifications discuss a broadcast channel overlaying a network, the claims at issue are not so limited.”).” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Majumder, testifies to the contrary that “[r]ead as an engineer, the ‘805 patent’s present invention is framed around guiding a vehicle to fixed, physical destinations (exemplified by docking stations and similar structures) without fiducials or special markings.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 81. Considering Broggi, Dr. Majumder testifies further that “[a] moving object, such as a preceding car, is not a valid destination under the ‘805 Patent, because it is not a stationary location at which the host vehicle can be guided to stop. To treat such a vehicle as a ‘potential destination’ would lead to collision, not guidance.” Id. ¶ 86. As discussed in our claim construction, given a plain reading of claim 1 in light of the Specification, our understanding of the ’805 patent is consistent with Dr. Majumder’s testimony. We agree that Broggi is directed expressly to the platooning of moving vehicles, and not physically fixed destinations as the proper claim construction requires. Because Broggi does not disclose the use of physically fixed “potential destinations” as required, e.g., in limitations [1.2]–[1.3], and neither Huttenlocher nor Brady are relied upon to overcome this deficiency, Petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Broggi in view of Huttenlocher and Brady.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,336,805 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,336,805
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 27, 2026 · IPR2022-01093 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 13 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the received card information defines the memory location for the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed our Original Decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. ASSA Abloy AB, No. 2024-1492, 2025 WL 3134960, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), Paper 43. The Federal Circuit also noted that in light of the affirmance of our decision in another proceeding, IPR2022- 00600, challenging the same patent, the “errors the Board made in this appeal only extends to claims 3–18, which were not at issue in the other appeal.” Id. at *3 n 1. Therefore, in this proceeding, only challenged claims 13 and 14 remain. At the request of the parties, we permitted additional briefing addressing the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 44. Petitioner filed an opening brief (Paper 51 (“Pet. Remand Br.”)), and Patent Owner filed an opening brief (Paper 52 (“PO Remand Br.”)). Both parties also filed responsive briefs. Paper 54 (“Pet. Responsive Br.”); Paper 55 (“PO Responsive Br.”). This is a Final Written Decision on Remand addressing the patentability of the remaining challenged claims 13 and 14. To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “offers nothing to suggest that its card information ‘tells you’ where to store the fingerprint data.” ASSA ABLOY AB, 2025 WL 3134960 at *3. Reversing our determinations as to Hsu, the Court found that the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, “merely confirms the associative link between the card information and the biometric data. Still missing is any non-conclusory testimony that Hsu’s card information determines the memory location of the biometric data.” Id. at 8. Therefore, on remand, a central question is whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Tsukamura cures this deficiency. Petitioner has not done so. In the Petition, Petitioner relies on Tsukamura for teaching a specific location for storing fingerprint data. See Pet. 75 (stating that “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory”). Petitioner argues that “[t]hus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., ‘a memory location is specified by the card information.’” Id. at 75–76 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 215). In support, Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, testifies that “[i]f the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

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

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. However, considering the Federal Circuit’s decision, we determine such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2026 · IPR2022-01094 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 3–12 and 15–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish that card information defined the memory location for storing the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Consistent with our Original Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access security. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. Limitation 3(da) The issues on remand revolve essentially around limitation 3(da): Limitation 3(da) – storing the inputted biometric signature in a memory at a memory location defined by the provided card information; Ex. 1001, 12:61–63. Considering limitation 3(da) in our Original Decision, we explained that during an enrollment process the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory, and no memory location or address has been “defined,” as in “set” or “established,” in the memory for storing the fingerprint, until card information is received. Once the card information and fingerprint are received during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, i.e., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data. Original Decision 16.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a fingerprint database (44) and retrieve reference fingerprint data previously stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is set or established “at a memory location defined by the provided card information” as recited in claim limitation 3(da). Taking a close look at Petitioner’s testimonial evidence as to claim 3, we first note Mr. Lipoff testifies that Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. But, concomitant with the Federal Circuit’s point, such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC card information to define “as in ‘set’ or ‘establish[]’” a memory location, as our claim construction requires. See Section II.C.3.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Illumina, Inc. v. Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 15, 2026 · IPR2024-01419 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references failed to disclose the claimed correcting step, and Chee was not prior art to claims 1–3 and 9.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered both parties’ arguments and evidence and determine that Patent Owner has presented sufficient evidence of reasonable the invention to practice every day during the critical period in order to demonstrate reasonable diligence. See Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[D]iligence need not be perfectly continuous—only reasonably continuous.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1331 (2019). The key question is whether, “in light of the evidence as a whole, the invention was not abandoned or unreasonably delayed.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Applying this standard, we determine that Patent Owner sufficiently demonstrates reasonably continuous diligence throughout the critical period.” slip op. at 32

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

    “introduced during said workflow by collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations observed more than once into a single count.” Ex. 1001, 131:46–48 (emphasis added). The “determining step” of claim 2 recites “determining a consensus base call for the target nucleic acid molecule sequences,” but performs “collapsing all sequence reads comprising a same differentiator tag into a single read,” before the “determining step.” Id. at 131:49–53. Patent Owner proposes an interpretation of these “collapsing” and “determining” steps recited in claims 1 and 2 and asserts that they should be construed as distinct steps performed in a particular order in which the “collapsing step” is performed before the “determining step.” PO Resp. 42–45. We agree. First, Patent Owner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “collapsing step” of claim 1 is distinct from, and must occur before, the “determining step” of claim 2 based on the plain language of claims 1 and 2. PO Resp. 42–43. Patent Owner argues that the “collapsing step” and the “determining step” are distinct steps because claims 1 and 2 use different terms to describe these distinct steps that are performed sequentially according to the claim language. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 131:47–54; Ex. 2023 ¶ 133; Ex. 2024, 57:11–58:22). More specifically, Patent Owner explains that claim 1 recites a “collapsing step,” followed by claim 2, which depends from claim 1 and refers to “collapsing” before “determining a consensus base call” such that “claim 2 describes determining a consensus base call from collapsed reads, not performing ‘collapsing’ by determining a consensus base call.” Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 131:47–54). collapsing corrects for skewing, an issue related to over- or under-amplification, which is a separate and distinct problem from the sequence errors that a consensus base call is designed to address.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:47–50, 32:29–34). Patent Owner contends further that “‘[c]ollapsing’ is a different step, performed separately from determining any consensus base call, to provide even greater accuracy when subsequently determining a consensus base call” such that “if one were to collapse by determining the consensus base call, errors from amplification bias could still be represented in the consensus base call generated.” Id. at 43–44 (emphasis omitted, citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 134–37). Second, Patent Owner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “collapsing step” of claim 1 is distinct from the “determining step” based on the specification of the ’730 patent. PO Resp. 43–45. For example, Patent Owner explains that the specification states that “[f]or any target:differentiator tag combination observed more than once, all such reads are ‘collapsed’ into a single read before consensus basecalls are determined. This will cancel the effect of bias on consensus basecall accuracy.” Id. at 43 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 72:63– 73:5) (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 133, 138–142).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We have considered both parties’ arguments and evidence and agree with Patent Owner’s position. As discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1 and the “determining step” recited in claim 2 are two different steps required by the challenged claims such that “collapsing” does not mean determining a consensus base call or sequence, and must occur before any determining step. As a result, we determine Chee’s step of determining a consensus sequence does not disclose the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1 that requires collapsing “target:differentiator tag combinations.” We are also unpersuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Chee’s process of correcting for amplification bias as disclosing the claimed collapsing step. As recognized by Patent Owner, the claim language of the “collapsing step” requires “collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations,” rather than collapsing only differentiator tags. In view of this requirement, Chee does not disclose the “collapsing step” because Chee teaches quantifying the starting nucleic acid molecules using their unique identifiers, rather than target:differentiator tag combinations. As Petitioner admits, “Chee’s technique for correcting amplification bias corrects quantitative errors without correcting sequencing errors” (Reply 15), whereas claim 1’s “collapsing step” corrects both quantitative errors and sequencing errors by using target:differentiator tag combinations. See Ex. 1001, 131:47–49 target:differentiator tag combinations).” slip op. at 41

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

    “Given this claim interpretation requiring collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations, it is undisputed that McCloskey, who uses unique barcodes alone, does not teach this limitation. Petitioner does not rely on Bignell as teaching this collapsing step. Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Bignell and McCloskey teaches the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1. Because claims 4 through 6 depend from claim 1, they also require the “collapsing step” of claim 1 that is not taught by the combination of Bignell and McCloskey.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 11,840,730 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,840,730
• Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v. Olink Proteomics ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01353 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness grounds failed, including because Kanan and Neri did not teach selecting the claimed cis-reactive cells.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, for purposes of this decision we adopt Petitioner’s proposal of a person of ordinary skill in the art, with the following changes noted in italics below: A person with “an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., in organic chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related field; and about two years of experience in industry and/or laboratory experience relating to small molecules and proteins and would have been familiar with nucleic acid chemistry and conventional hybridization techniques; and (b) access to one or more team members having an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., in organic chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related field; and about two years of experience in industry and/or laboratory experience relating to high throughput screening techniques such as nucleic acid sequencing. A person could also have qualified as a POSA with less formal education and more technical or professional experience.11 We emphasize, however, that our decision would not change if we instead used Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSA.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Because the parties have placed the limitation “selecting all cis- reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace” into controversy, we construe the term below, but only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase, in light of the language of the claims, the Specification, and the prosecution history of record, requires “selecting all of the [molecular complexes or structures] meeting the defined criteria for [cis-reactive cells (CRCs)] and exhibiting the detectable trace.” Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 94, 98–119). We further agree that cis-reactive cells should be construed to mean “an association of at least two interactor moieties, joined by an associated oligonucleotide.” (PO Resp. 9 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:35-37)). Accordingly, we determine that, properly construed, the claims require that what is “selected” at step 1(d) — what is differentiated or set apart from other molecular complexes or structures in the reaction mixture at the conclusion of step 1(d) — to be “an association of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide” that exhibits the detectable trace.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Kanan and Neri teaches “selecting all cis-reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace,” as we have construed that phrase above. In particular, we determine that, properly construed, the limitation requires the selection of “all associations of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide and exhibiting the detectable trace.” Instead, as described in Kanan, what is “selected” is the molecules of interest joined by bond formation, with only one of the molecules of interest coupled to a nucleic acid moiety. Thus, the selected molecular complex or structure does not comprise two interactors (i.e., two molecules of interest coupled to NAMs). Moreover, to the extent there are two interactors, they are joined by the bond between the molecules of interest rather than an associated oligonucleotide.” slip op. at 35

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Patent Owner moved to exclude Exhibit 1008, on the ground that it contains settlement statements and that Rule 408 of the Federal Rule of Evidence prohibits Petitioner from using the statements to impeach or contradict Patent Owner. Mot. 5. Because we do not rely in our analysis on this exhibit, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 7,883,848 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,883,848
• Illumina Inc. v. Molecular Loop Innovations LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2026 · IPR2024-00964 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable over either asserted §103 combination because the prior art did not teach the discarding step or establish a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “specification to interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the specification into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[T]he line between construing terms and importing limitations”, however, “can be discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if [our] focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms.” Id. Ultimately, we construe claim terms to “capture the scope of the actual invention more accurately than either strictly limiting the scope of the claims to the embodiments disclosed in the specification or divorcing the claim language from the specification.” Id. at 1324. Here, we are tasked with resolving the dispute between the parties as to the scope of the source of the claimed cross-over error. See Sur-reply 2. Although claim 1 does not explicitly recite cross-over error is created during cluster amplification, the specification shows otherwise. It repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively describes cross-over errors as arising from the formation of chimeric molecules during the amplification step of the sequencing workflow. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, 4:29–52 (describing “improper molecular overlap via formation of a heteroduplex between patient A’s nucleic acid template and patient B’s nucleic acid template” “[w]hen the amplification process begins”), 5:29–58 (the same), 6:25–44 (the same), 6:64–7:23 (the same).” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had (i) a Ph.D. in molecular biology, genetics, bioinformatics, or a related field and at least two years of experience in high-throughput sequencing technologies or (ii) a Master’s degree in one of the same fields with at least four years of experience in high-throughput sequencing technologies.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–20). Patent Owner states that it adopts Petitioner’s proposal for a POSA for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–22). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skill level as it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We find both Dr. Spellman and Dr. Adalsteinsson are qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSA, because each has at least ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 4–9.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 9 Because, as explained below, we find Petitioner has not met its burden to show reasonable expectation of success, we do not need to address whether Petitioner has shown sufficient reason to combine the asserted references. 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (stating that “failure to consider the appropriate scope of the . . . patent’s claimed invention in evaluating the reasonable expectation of success . . . constitutes a legal error”). Here, the claimed invention is a method for reducing template cross-over error. Thus, we must determine whether, in December 2010, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably expected that the combination of Parameswaran and Gloor would reduce template cross-over error. slip op. at 26

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

    “Thus, on this record, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Parameswaran’s “unexpected perfect pairings of unmatched forward and reverse barcodes” are not cross-over error. PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 116–123). In addition, as Petitioner acknowledges, Parameswaran merely “distinguished,” but did not “discard” sequences with mismatches. Pet. 34. Parameswaran states that “[t]he low false-discovery rate for perfect matches strengthens the argument that any sequence with both 5’ and 3’ barcode motifs will be placed with reasonable accuracy into the correct bin.” Ex. 1004, 8. But, because Parameswaran achieved a “remarkably low misassignment rate,” it did not discard, but included any sequence with a matched barcode. Id. Indeed, Parameswaran explains that “[f]or our purposes, all sequences with a match to one of the two expected sequence motifs were considered as true members of the corresponding dataset.” Id. In its Reply, Petitioner emphasizes Parameswaran’s language “[f]or our purposes.” Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 8). According to Petitioner, “[a] POSA would have understood from Parameswaran that chimeric sequences could be kept or discarded, depending on the sequencing ‘purpose.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1054 ¶¶ 79–82). Petitioner is asking us to deem unpatentable a claim based on its reading of “for our purposes,” a broad, undefined statement, to mean something specific—a suggestion to discard perfect unexpected pairings, which Parameswaran explicitly did not do. See Ex. 1004, 8. Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence and persuasive argument for us to do so.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,041,852 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,041,852
• Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00580 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claim 8 not shown unpatentable under each of three §103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish motivation to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had at least a Ph.D. in biochemistry, molecular biology, or a related field and between one and four years of post-doctoral experience in the field of gene therapy. Alternatively, a POSA would have had at least a Master’s or Bachelor’s Degree in biochemistry, molecular biology, or a related field, with a corresponding number of additional years of experience in the field of gene therapy. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–115). Patent Owner states that it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 10. On this complete record, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’274 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)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the ’274 patent “does not specify a particular program or set of program parameters that should be used to align sequences and calculate percent identity for purposes of determining whether a particular test sequence falls within the scope of the claims.” Pet. 21. Petitioner asserts that it analyzed the percent identity claim elements, as Patent Owner did in the parallel District Court litigation, Penn-II, “using the Clustal program at default settings to generate amino acid sequence alignments and calculate percent identity values.” Id. at 21–22. Petitioner, however, does not ask for any particular construction of any claim term. See id. Patent Owner states that it “does not challenge Petitioner’s articulation of the lack of a need for claim construction.” PO Resp. 10. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary to reach our decision. 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)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. v. 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., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “According to the import of the complete recitation of paragraph 250 of the ’772 Publication set forth above that Petitioner relies upon for the motivation to improve efficient gene transfer in liver, AAV8 already fulfills this need. See Tr. 28:15–18. We do not read the ’772 Publication as calling for a search for a more efficient variant to improve efficient gene transfer in liver. We credit Dr. Samulski’s testimony that supports this view of the teachings of the ’772 Publication. Dr. Samulski testifies: Additionally, when the inventors compared AAV8’s expression in the liver against new serotypes AAVrh2, AAVrh10, AAVrh13, and AAVrh21, they found that AAV8 remained superior: EX1007, ¶ 253. Notably, AAV8 was shown to have over fifty percent (50%) greater expression in liver than AAVrh10. As I discuss more below, a skilled artisan in 2005 would not have expected a single amino acid substitution to significantly alter tropism in order to target to a different tissue. Thus, in my opinion, in 2005, a skilled artisan with the goal of targeting the liver would have selected the best known vector for delivery to liver at that time—AAV8. Ex. 2027 ¶ 42. We also agree with Dr. Samulski’s opinion that a POSA would have selected the best vector for liver, AAV8, instead of modifying another vector to increase tropism to liver. Dr. Samulski testifies: In my opinion, a skilled artisan in 2005 would not have looked solely to modify a vector to try to improve tropism to a particular tissue. As discussed throughout this declaration, changing tropism is difficult to predict, and a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation that changes could be made to improve or alter tropism. A skilled artisan would also have been concerned that changes, even small ones, could negatively impact other properties of the capsid protein. Therefore, rather than seek to modify a vector, a skilled artisan” slip op. at 29

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

    “The ’772 Publication, however, does not indicate as Petitioner asserts that a new variant is necessary to improve the efficiency of gene transfer to liver; the ’772 Publication indicates that AAV8 fulfills that need. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 250. In the paragraph that Petitioner relies upon for the alleged need to improve the efficiency of gene transfer to the liver, the ’772 Publication states in full: The tropism of each new vector is favorable for in vivo applications. AAV2/7 vectors appear to transduce skeletal muscle as efficiently as AAV2/1, which is the serotype that confers the highest level of transduction in skeletal muscle of the primate AAVs tested to date. Importantly, AAV2/8 provides a substantial advantage over the other serotypes in terms of efficiency of gene transfer to liver that until now has been relatively disappointing in terms of the numbers of hapatocytes stably transduced. AAV2/8 consistently achieved a 10 to 100-fold improvement in gene transfer efficiency as compared to the other vectors. The basis for the improved efficiency of AAV2/8 is unclear, although it presumably is due to uptake via a different receptor that is more active on the basolateral surface of hepatocytes. This improved efficiency will be quite useful in the development of liver-directed gene transfer where the number of transduced cells is critical, such as in urea cycle disorders and familial hypercholesterolemia. Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). According to the import of the complete recitation of paragraph 250 of the ’772 Publication set forth above that Petitioner relies upon for the motivation to improve efficient gene transfer in liver, AAV8 already fulfills this need. See Tr. 28:15–18. We do not read the ’772 Publication as calling for a search for a more efficient variant to improve efficient gene transfer in liver. We credit Dr. Samulski’s testimony that supports this view of the teachings of the ’772 Publication. Dr. Samulski testifies: Additionally, when the inventors compared AAV8’s expression in the liver against new serotypes AAVrh2, AAVrh10, AAVrh13, and AAVrh21, they found that AAV8 remained superior:” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 11,680,274 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,680,274

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.