• Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00707 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 5 is unpatentable over Gao-2 and over Gao-2 with Goubet; claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable on any ground, and substitute claim 17 was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose explicit constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 16–17; PO Resp. 5–6. Based on the complete record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “As an initial matter, the record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration for allegedly not reviewing the parties’ claim constructions. See Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1046, 115:15–18). Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited 11 This refers to the recitation in clauses 1F and 5F that the “diffusion assembly is disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber.” discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1; see also Pet. Reply 3 (arguing that “Dr. Micklow’s opinion that the prior art does not render the claims obvious is premised on an interpretation of certain claim limitations that are inconsistent with both parties’ constructions” (emphasis added)). Instead, we read Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also id. at 115:15–18 (“I don’t know if I would even apply claim construction. I applied engineering principles to a document that had been published with the patent office.”).” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “referring to the same direction as the separation of the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber” (vertically in both Figure 6 of the challenged patent and Figure 1 of Goubet), we turn back now to Petitioner’s discussion of clause 1F, which includes the limitation at issue. There, Petitioner does not discuss why the “diffusion assembly” is allegedly “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber,” but instead, Petitioner discusses why a component of the “diffusion assembly”—the “atomizer assembly”—is allegedly “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber”: Pet. 39. In the end, we need not assess whether the “atomizer assembly” identified by Petitioner is “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber” under the proper construction of that term (which, again, we need not and do not determine here) because the “disposed between” limitation does not involve the “atomizer assembly.” Instead, we find that, by failing to address why the identified “diffusion assembly” is “disposed between” the identified “upper chamber” and “lower chamber,” Petitioner has failed to provide persuasive evidence that Goubet discloses or suggests the “disposed between” limitation. Pet. 38–39 (discussing the claim language “said diffusion assembly is disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber” but only discussing the location of the “atomizer assembly”); see 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review . . . , the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”). For the reasons above, we find, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Goubet discloses or suggests the “disposed between” limitation.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,092,918 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,092,918
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2026 · IPR2025-00140 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7–18 were not shown unpatentable because Ribarits does not disclose a mouthpiece disposed on the pivotal mount.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Trove contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products” and that “[m]ore work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 25). While CamelBak offers “a similar, though slightly different level,” it nonetheless “discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes of the Board’s decision in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 27. That being the case, we adopt Trove’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art, as it is 2 JP 2002-211613A, published July 31, 2002 (Ex. 1004, “Nakajima”). 3 WO 2004/063042 A2, published July 29, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Ribarits”). 4 US 4,485,963, issued Dec. 4, 1984 (Ex. 1007, “Panicci”). 5 US 6,523,711 B1, issued Feb. 25, 2003 (Ex. 1008, “Hughes”). reasonable and consistent with what is reflected in the asserted prior art and the specification of the ’250 patent. B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 7

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

    “We will not bite. CamelBak’s original assertion—that the plain and ordinary meaning of the constituent parts of “mouth” and “piece” is “a piece (or part) that goes in the mouth”—underscores the fallacy of CamelBak’s additional physical contact requirement. PO Resp. 28 (emphasis added). Indeed, in support of that earlier assertion, CamelBak pointed to the very dictionary definition that we relied on at institution in construing “mouthpiece” as a part that either “goes in the mouth or to which the mouth is applied.” See id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2005 (emphasis added)). Even the original testimony of CamelBak’s own expert confirms that one skilled in the art “would understand that the term ‘mouthpiece’ is commonly known in the art as a part designed for a user’s mouth,” without any requirement for physical contact with the mouth. Ex. 2016 ¶ 58 (citing Ex. 2005) (emphasis added)). And nothing in the Specification limits that common understanding. Although, indisputably, the Specification contemplates an embodiment where the user physically contacts the mouthpiece with their teeth (i.e., a bite-actuated mouthpiece), it also contemplates an embodiment where the user simply inserts the bottle in their mouth and commences fluid flow by squeezing it. See Ex. 1001, 10:9–13. That disclosure supports a meaning of “mouthpiece” that simply requires placement in the opening of the user’s mouth without necessarily incurring physical contact with some portion of the mouth, such as the teeth, tongue, or lips. Indeed, had CamelBak wished to premise the meaning of “mouthpiece” on some sort of physical contact with the mouth, it knew how to do so. For instance, the independent claims of CamelBak’s earlier ’255 patent, which is the subject of the related 1137 IPR, are limited in just such a manner, as they recite “wherein the resilient mouthpiece is adapted to resiliently compress responsive to compressive forces applied to the resilient mouthpiece by a user’s teeth.” Ex. 2023, at 20–25 (emphasis added). Thus, we reject CamelBak’s attempt to narrow our construction of “mouthpiece” to something other than “a part (as of an instrument) that goes in the mouth or to which the mouth is applied.” Neither the intrinsic nor extrinsic evidence supports the narrower construction proposed by CamelBak.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In reply, Trove argues that CamelBak’s “novel” construction that the mouthpiece moves with rotational motion about that same axis of rotation defined by the two joint as the pivotal mount and in the same direction as the pivotal mount “are inconsistent with the claim language’s plain and ordinary meaning and find no support in the intrinsic and extrinsic record.” See Pet. Reply 16. But, because we find that, when properly construed, the claimed “pivotal movement with the pivotal mount” about “two joints that define a pivotal axis” requires that the mouthpiece rotate about the same axis and in the same direction as the pivotal mount, we reject Trove’s argument as unavailing. And, although we agree with Trove that Nakajima’s mouthpiece engages in counter-clockwise rotation about a “Second Pivot Axis” when Nakajima’s lid 4 is opened (id. at 20–22), that rotation is about a different axis—one defined by Nakajima’s protrusions 24 rather than the claimed “pivotal axis” defined by Nakajima’s hinge shafts 19—and in a different manner—an upward and counterclockwise path rather than the claimed “pivotal movement with the pivotal mount” defined by Nakajima’s lid 4. Finally, in an alternative theory, Trove and its expert use “image- manipulation tools” in an attempt to show that Nakajima’s mouthpiece engages in some initial “clockwise-rotation” with Nakajima’s lid as it is opened. See Pet. Reply 18–24. We reject that theory as entirely conjectural and unsupported by the evidence.” slip op. at 39

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

    “We disagree. As discussed above, the proper construction of “for pivotal movement with the pivotal mount” requires that the mouthpiece mirror the rotational movement of the pivotal mount, i.e., rotate about the same axis as the pivotal mount and in the same direction as the pivotal mount. See supra § II.B.3. But Nakajima’s mouthpiece does neither, and, thus, does not exhibit the claimed “pivotal movement with the pivotal mount” about “two joints that define a pivotal axis for . . . the pivotal mount axis,” as properly construed.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 11,851,250 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,851,250
• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2026 · IPR2021-01449 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Remand

  Claims 3–5 are unpatentable; claims 1 and 2 are not shown unpatentable. Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over the applied grounds under the remand construction of “movement vector.”

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “was incorrect, vacated the Final Written Decision as to claims 3 and 4, and remanded the case to the Board to determine the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” and decide the outcome for claims 3 and 4 in accordance with that meaning. Atos, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2025 WL 1482404, at *5 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025); Paper 35 (“Federal Circuit Remand,” “Remand,” or “Fed. Cir. Remand”). Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s instructions, the Board authorized the” slip op. at 3

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

    “considered individually and together, have well-understood, common meanings to ordinarily skilled artisans as of the invention date, reflected by the ’174 patent’s specification and other evidence of record noted above. Accordingly, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” is “a vector indicating movement of an object.” 3) “operation indicator” Petitioner” slip op. at 20

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

    “Dr. Kanellakopoulos’s explanation that angular momentum is not inherent to an object, and its computation requires an arbitrary choice of a point of origin that has no physical meaning in the context of vehicle motion, also supports Patent Owner’s position. Id. ¶ 71 (citing Ex. 2004, 262). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument, that angular momentum cannot be used to detect a vehicle turning, is persuasive. Id. We also find persuasive, as Dr. Kanellakopoulos explains, that Petitioner’s argument regarding the figure on Kleppner 234 is based on misinterpretation of the vectors in that figure. Id. ¶ 67 (explaining that Kleppner 233–234 does not depict a gravity vector).” slip op. at 35

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

    “Kleppner does not disclose a rotation vector, a person of ordinary skill would have used the knowledge of a rotation vector (because it is a term of art) alongside Kleppner’s teaching, to arrive at claim 1. See Pet. Reply 11. This argument does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner does not explain which teaching of Kleppner a person of ordinary skill would have selected and combined with their knowledge of a rotation vector to yield the method of claim 1, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have recognized based on Kleppner that estimating the angle between a rotation vector and gravity vector could be used to detect a vehicle turning. Nor does Petitioner respond to Patent Owner’s assertion that Kleppner provides no rationale for estimating an angle of alignment between a rotation vector and gravity vector as a way of detecting a vehicle turning. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 65.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,846,174 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,846,174
• Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00159 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 19 are unpatentable over Minami; claims 1–3, 7, 16–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Good or Munsing.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “lululemon contends, and Nike does not dispute, that a person skilled in the art in the relevant time frame would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear” and such person’s “additional experience compensates for any differences in that person’s education as stated above.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex.1003 ¶¶ 33–35); see also PO Resp. 14 (“For purposes of this proceeding, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). We find that lululemon’s proposed definition is consistent with the problems and solutions described in the ’046 patent and the prior art of record. Thus, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We are not persuaded by lululemon’s attempt to equate the term “channel” in that passage with an open-periphery configuration. Nowhere does that passage indicate that the “channel” has an open-periphery. Instead, lululemon merely presumes, without support, that channels are open-periphery structures. More accurately, the terms “tunnel” and “channel” in the passage cited by lululemon are used synonymously. That is made clear by the overall context of the ’046 patent at issue, which is directed to how tubular rib structures 126 are formed by “first” and “second” curved portions 416 and 418 that are “knitted together” to define “hollow tube 112.” See Ex. 1001, 10:16–11:14, Figs. 4, 5 (emphasis added). In particular, the sentence cited by lululemon describes hollow tube 112 as being “disposed between” first and second curved portions 416 and 418, which Figures 4 and 5 of the ’046 patent clearly depict in a closed-periphery configuration. See id. at 10:66–11:3, Figs. 4, 5. Moreover, the very next sentence expressly describes that hollow tube 112 has “a generally cylindrical or elliptical shape” wherein “[t]he diameter of one hollow tube and the diameter of other hollow tubes may differ in some embodiments.” Id. at 11:3–14 (emphases added). We are not aware of any open-periphery channels being described as having a cylindrical or elliptical shape, nor are we aware of such a channel being described as having a diameter. Thus, lululemon’s proposed claim construction ignores the context surrounding the ’046 patent’s description of the tubular rib structures when it describes them as having the configuration of a tunnel or channel.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Nike, given our construction of the claimed “tubular structures.” As shown in annotated Figures 1, 3, and 4 of Good (reproduced below), Good discloses a sock 12 having rib portions 22 (red) and webbed areas 24 (green). See PO Resp. 19. lululemon contends that Good’s rib portions 22 meet the claimed “tubular structures” because each rib portion 22 “roll[s] substantially together in the relaxed condition” and “has the shape of a tube, namely an elongate hollow structure.” Pet. 29–30. In support, lululemon points to Good’s Figure 3 (reproduced below center) as allegedly showing the tubular shape of Good’s rib portions 22. Id. at 30. Annotated Figure 3 is a vertical cross-section of rib portions 22 (red) shown in Good’s Figure 1. But, as Nike correctly notes, Good’s rib portions 22 are “C-shaped knitted portions,” which when stretched, go from an essentially C-shaped configuration (Figure 3) to a relatively flat, linear configuration (Figure 4). PO Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 48–49). Nowhere does Good disclose that the ends of C-shaped rib portions 22 ever meet and remain in a closed periphery configuration to form a hollow tube per our construction of “tubular structures” (as discussed above in Section II.B). In at least this way, Good’s C-shaped rib portions 22 differ from the claimed “tubular structures.”7 Thus, we find that Good does not disclose or otherwise suggest the claimed “tubular structures,” as properly construed, meaning that lululemon fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Good either anticipates claims 1–3, 7, 16–18, and 20, or, alternatively, renders obvious claim 3.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we said that Munsing lacks the claimed “tubular structures” because “nowhere does Munsing indicate that the rows of stitches or loops form a rib that is tubular-like, let alone one with a closed periphery.” Inst. Dec. 10–12. During the trial phase, lululemon’s expert likewise agreed, conceding (on cross-examination) that Munsing only discloses non-tubular structures. See Ex. 2007, 40:9–41:11 (“Q [by Patent Owner’s counsel]: So you agree that . . . Munsing only discloses a nontubular rib? A [by lululemon’s expert]: That’s what I said.”). Nowhere does lululemon rebut that admission by its own expert, despite Nike noting it explicitly as a reason for rejecting Ground 2. Compare PO Resp. 25–26 (noting the admission of lululemon’s expert), with Pet. Reply 1–26 (addressing only Grounds 1 and 3, while omitting any mention of Ground 2, which is based on Munsing). Nor does lululemon ever dispute the preliminary findings in our Institution Decision as to why Munsing is not an anticipatory reference. Compare Inst. Dec. 10–12, with Pet. Reply 1–22. Thus, lululemon fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Munsing anticipates challenged claims 1–3, 7, 17, 18, and 20.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,375,046 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,375,046
• 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
• Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00189 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 8, and 11–16 are unpatentable over Arrasvuori; claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 17–20 are not unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’256 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Lynch (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43, 44).” slip op. at 13

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

    “simultaneously communicate in real-time to the first user at the first location and the second user at the second location, an interface indicating whether the challenge has been met.” Ex. 1001, 40:64–67 (emphasis added). The claim language itself suggests that “continuously generat[ing]” an interface in “real-time” allows the interface to indicate whether a challenge “has been met,” and doing so “in real-time” suggests that updates to the interface are generated as developments occur that may affect whether the challenge “has been met.” Notably, the subject claim limitation explicitly recites “continuously” generating the interface “in real-time”; it does not recite— but easily could have if intended—“periodically” generating the interface (i.e., at predetermined time intervals independent of the occurrence of developments that may affect whether the challenge has been met).3” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends Arrasvuori qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) based on its filing and publication dates. Pet. 24. Patent Owner does not contest the prior art status of Arrasvuori. Also, on this record, we have no evidence of an invention date other than the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Arrasvuori qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Arrasvuori’s publication date of October 11, 2007, is before the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is March 3, 2008, and under § 102(e) because Arrasvuori’s filing date of March 29, 2006, is before the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims (March 3, 2008). Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60), (63); Ex. 1005, code (22), (43).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Arrasvuori discloses (a) “[m]onitoring” of “users performing real- world fitness tasks” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 38), using (b) “monitoring equipment . . . integrated into . . . wireless nodes and/or other computers of users, and/or [] attached to bodies of users” (id. at ¶ 39 (emphasis added)), where (c) “[u]sers might . . . wear their wireless nodes and/or other computers” (id. (emphasis added)), and where (d) “[t]he phrase[] ‘computer’ . . . refer[s] but [is] not limited to . . . a computerized watch” (id. at ¶ 90 (emphasis added); see id. at ¶ 40 (disclosing that “employed monitoring equipment might include one or more sensors”)). We find that these descriptions in Arrasvuori provide an anticipatory disclosure, particularly to the skilled artisan, of the limitation “wirelessly-connected sensor worn on an appendage of a first user.” See Ex. 1017 ¶ 45; Ex. 2006, 84:10-85:22. Although Arrasvuori does not recite in a single sentence the substance of disclosures (a) through (d) above, such as explicitly stating that its “wireless node is a computerized watch,” this is not necessary for the skilled artisan to understand that Arrasvuori discloses such a feature. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832–33 (anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”). Moreover, as argued by Petitioner, Arrasvuori’s disclosure of sensors “attached to bodies of users” and of users “wear[ing]” sensors itself discloses the subject limitation as broadly recited, even without considering the additional disclosure of a computerized watch. See Pet. Reply 17 (“Arrasvuori teaches wrist-worn sensors by stating that its users can ‘wear their wireless nodes and/or other computers.’” (citing Ex. 1005 ¶39)).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,278,256 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,278,256
• Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. American Wave Machines, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01033 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, and 16–18 are unpatentable as obvious over McFarland and Chutter; claims 3–6, 8, and 12–15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “pools would have “knowledge and familiarity with: (i) design of mechanical structures and (ii) fluid characteristics and the interaction of fluid forces upon mechanical structures,” and that this knowledge “could be obtained by: (i) successfully completing a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering or (ii) at least 5 years of experience in a job working with control systems, including designing or implementing such wave generation machines.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 36–37). AWM does not contest that assertion. See PO Resp. 2 (“it will be assumed that a PHOSITA has a background and the level of skill described in Petitioner’s definition”). We see no reason to deviate from WhiteWater’s proffered level of skill in the art. Thus, we adopt WhiteWater’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We need not expressly construe the disputed “controller” limitation because, as discussed below, WhiteWater prevails in its challenge of claims 1, 11, and 16, even assuming AWM’s proposed construction is correct. 2. “the delay . . . is a fraction of the chamber period” AWM construes this claim limitation to mean that the delay is “a portion of the whole chamber period,” in other words, a time period “less than the whole chamber period.” PO Resp. 6–7. WhiteWater, in turn, contends that the term “fraction” is not limited to “something ‘less than a whole’” and can be represented simply as a “quotient of two numbers.” Pet. Reply 5. We need not expressly construe term “fraction” as used in this claim limitation because, as discussed below, WhiteWater fails in its challenge of claims 3, 8, and 12, even assuming its proposed construction is correct.” slip op. at 9

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

    “chamber 11 includes “operating device 30” and “flow control devices 17, 19.” Ex. 1005, 3:11-16, 3:43–45. According to Chutter, each chamber 11 “has similar mechanisms and the bank of chambers can be operated in any desired rhythm or sequence by a controller 40 coupled to each of operating devices 30 so that the pool can be provided with recreational waves of any desired pattern.” Id. at 4:3–13 (emphasis added). The pattern of waves “may be varied, as is well known, according to the sequencing at which pressurized air is delivered to the plurality of chambers.” Id. at 2:55–58 (emphasis added). Notably, Chutter teaches that central controller 40 is “arranged to control the rhythm or pattern of the several operating means so that, for example, all operating means” are actuated either “simultaneously” to create an “essentially linear” wave effect, or “sequentially” to create a “curved” or “non-orthogonal” wave effect. Id. at 2:12–39 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:58–59 (“Adjacent chambers may be air pressurized alternately or simultaneously.”). Consistent with that disclosure, Chutter depicts controller 40 with multiple “connection” arrows to also indicate that a single, common controller controls the valve structure8 in multiple of Chutter’s wave-generating chambers 11. See id. at Fig. 1. Based on Chutter’s disclosures as a whole, we find that Chutter’s central controller 40 exemplifies a well-known and conventional controller 8 During the oral hearing, AWM’s counsel conceded that the term “valve structure,” as used in the claims, means not only “a set of valves,” but also “additional structure,” such as the means “to operate those valves” or “the actuator for the valves.” Hrg. Tr. 33:1–17. As such, we view Chutter’s operating means 30 and flow control devices 17 and 19 as corresponding to the claimed “valve structure.” capable of being connected to the valve structure in each of a series of wavegenerating chambers so as to actuate the valve structures in a sequential and delayed fashion to create a surf-simulating wave in a pool. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 162; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 129–130. With that in mind, we further find that one skilled in the art would have looked to Chutter to reprogram or modify McFarland’s controller to operate in the same manner as Chutter’s controller so that McFarland’s controller was also capable of actuating the wave-generating chambers in a sequential and delayed fashion, as required by independent claims 1, 11, and 16. See Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 163–164; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 131–133. Indeed, both McFarland and Chutter seek to create desirable surf waves and have similar wave-generating structures, such as a bank of chambers at one end of a pool and a controller for actuating a valve structure in each chamber to release water from the chamber into the pool. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 163; Ex. 1016 ¶ 131.” slip op. at 14

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

    “As discussed above, WhiteWater persuasively shows that the combination of McFarland and Chutter teaches or suggests the disputed “controller” limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, in particular, limitations 1.C, 1.D, 1.D.1, 11.C, 11.D, 11.D.1, 16.C, and 16.D.1. AWM does not otherwise dispute WhiteWater’s showing of how the asserted combination teaches the remaining limitations of the independent claims. See PO Resp. 44, 49, 53, 62 (identifying claim elements 1.C, 1.D, 1.D.1, 11.C, 11.D, 11.D.1, 16.C, and 16.D.1 as being absent from the asserted combination). Nor does AWM dispute WhiteWater’s showing that the asserted combination teaches the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18, contending only that they are “distinguishable over McFarland and Chutter for at least the same reasons previously explained” with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16. Based on our review, we find that the record fully supports WhiteWater’s showing that the asserted combination teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 16, as well as the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18. See Pet. 58–63. In sum, after weighing all relevant factual findings, including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of McFarland and Chutter, and any differences between their combined teachings and the claimed invention,9 we conclude that WhiteWater demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, and 16–18 of the ’966 patent are unpatentable as obvious over McFarland and Chutter. Having determined those claims to be unpatentable, we do not address whether they are also unpatentable under WhiteWater’s alternative theories based on McFarland alone and Chutter alone. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (non-precedential) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and, thus, has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,434,966 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,434,966
• Chanel, Inc. v. Molo Design, Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2023 · IPR2022-00545 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–25 and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over MacAllen with the cited references; claims 1–10, 12, 14, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Chanel argues, with support from its declarant, Mr. Rake, that one skilled in the art during the relevant time frame “would have a bachelor’s degree and at least two years of relevant experience working as an industrial designer, interior designer, furniture designer, architect, or other similar professional” and “would be knowledgeable regarding furniture design and/or the design of exhibit and display systems, and would have a general understanding of related manufacturing processes.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–46). Molo does not contest Chanel’s definition, and Mr. Rake agrees that it accurately reflects the level of skill in the art. See Pet. Reply 1 (“The parties agree on the POSITA and level of ordinary skill in the art.”); Ex. 2010 ¶ 34 (“I believe this is an accurate definition of a POSITA and 13 Although occasionally we may focus on Molo’s arguments, we do not shift the ultimate burden from Chanel. We focus on Molo’s arguments simply to identify issues in dispute, some of which we find unpersuasive in view of the record as a whole. have used this for my analysis.”). Because Chanel’s definition of the level of skill in the art appears reasonable and consistent with the ’161 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of our analysis.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The meaning of “freestanding” set forth in our Institution Decision is consistent with the Specification and prosecution history of the ’161 patent. For instance, during prosecution, the applicants rebutted the Examiner’s finding that “supports are required for the structure to be freestanding” by representing that “the extended wall, which is the structure itself, is freestanding when the base of the wall is placed on the floor of a room” and is “without supports.” Ex. 1002 at 185, 190 (first emphasis added). Based on that representation—that the expanded structure is capable of standing on its own without additional supports that are not part of the structure itself— the Examiner allowed the claims. See id. at 192. The Specification also supports that the expanded structure is freestanding in the absence of additional supports due to foldable supports 14 and 16 being adhered to end panels 18d at opposite ends of the core so as to be part of the structure itself— An end panel 18d of the core is connected to respective ones of the supports 14 and 16 over its entire width. The supports 14 and 16 are made from a self-supporting material, typically a non woven felt material, which has a degree of flexibility but also has sufficient rigidity to resist collapse of the core 12. The supports 14 and 16 extend laterally beyond the core as indicated at 32 and are adhered to respective ones of the end panels 18d. * * * Once partially extended, the supports 14 and 16 may be folded along a vertical axis to provide enhanced rigidity at each end of the partition 12. * * * [T]he supports 14, 16, at the free ends of the partition [are] folded upon themselves to provide stable support. Ex. 1001, 4:50–61, 5:12–14, 5:57–59. With that intrinsic evidence in mind, we maintain the construction in our Institution Decision that the term “freestanding” means “standing alone free of support or attachment.”” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree on both counts. Chanel’s justification for folding the end panels of SoftHousing I into tubular supports finds absolutely no support in the record, and instead, amounts to impermissible hindsight. More specifically, Chanel’s first justification—“functional reasons”—most certainly is derived from the ’161 patent itself, which states unequivocally that “supports 14 and 16 may be folded along a vertical axis to provide enhanced rigidity at each end of the partition 12.” Ex. 1001, 5:12–14. Nowhere does Chanel or its declarant, Mr. Rake, point us to any teaching in SoftHousing I or other prior art indicating that folding the end panels of a honeycomb-like structure into tubular supports was known to enhance its structural integrity. Instead, Chanel’s sole evidence for modifying SoftHousing I, be it for functional or aesthetic reasons, is the unsupported and conclusory opinion testimony of Mr. Rake. See Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 134–137). But nowhere does Mr. Rake provide any evidentiary support for his conclusions. Instead, he simply opines generally on the limits of folding paper effectively—“[T]here’s kind of a limit to how you can manipulate paper effectively, and one of the things you do is fold it. That’s, like, first off. Take a piece of paper, it has no structure, no strength, and you put a fold in it, and you can probably stand it on a – on a desk.” Ex. 2011, 200:3–14. But that testimony says nothing about folding paper into a tubular shape, let alone folding end panels of a honeycomb structure into a tubular shape. As such, we reject the notion that Mr. Rake’s testimony provides credible support for modifying the paper-like end panels of SoftHousing I into tubular supports.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Unlike SoftHousing I, Okuno discloses rigid supports—namely, “substrates 1, 1”—for a honeycomb structure. See Ex. 1011 at 2, Fig. 1. However, Chanel fails to explain why one skilled in the art would have looked to Okuno’s lampshade to modify a partition wall as disclosed in SoftHousing I. Although Chanel states that both are constructed of honeycomb structures, so too are many other objects, including beehives, window shades, collapsible containers, and expandable benches, chairs, and tables. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 55. So, it was incumbent on Chanel to state a more compelling reason for combining the teachings of SoftHousing I and Okuno than simply they share a common material, i.e., a honeycomb-like core. Indeed, conspicuously absent from Chanel’s evidence is any testimony from Chanel’s declarant, Mr. Rake, regarding a reason to combine Okuno with SoftHousing I. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 141 (relying solely on SoftHousing I for teaching the subject matter of claims 12 and 14); see also Pet. 43–44 (lacking citation to Mr. Rake’s declaration). Without more, we are not persuaded that Chanel articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning for combining Okuno’s teachings with SoftHousing I. Thus, we determine that Chanel fails to demonstrate that dependent claims 12 and 14 would have been obvious over SoftHousing I and Okuno.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,689,161 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,689,161
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00605 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable over Gravesen and Brister; claims 7, 11, and 18–28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest possible effective filing date (“POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a related subject, and one or more years of experience researching, developing and/or designing insertable medical devices, including, e.g., systems for implanting wearable medical devices such as cannulas, infusion sets, and analyte sensors, or equivalent experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 11 n.1. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

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

    “On the full trial record, we again find that Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing is unwarranted. First, the intrinsic record does not support Patent Owner’s required “central” axis. Patent Owner argues that the Specification describes two inserter embodiments as having “rotors,” and those rotors have a central axis. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 29:25–28, 29:55–59, Figs. 32, 45). Patent Owner, however, fails to explain why those embodiments should be understood to limit the claims. For example, in Phillips, the Federal Circuit “expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the Petition does state that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of a ‘recess’ to include ‘an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room),’” the Petition does not specify what else is “include[d]” in this term, nor does it specify that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire interior of a housing. The Petition also does not invoke the Specification as demonstrating that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire housing.13 Pet. 64 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s belated proposal also conflicts with the language of the claims themselves. Independent claim 1 recites “a rotor disposed within the inserter housing.” Ex. 1001, 43:42. Dependent claim 7 narrows claim 1 by reciting that “the housing comprises a recess in which the rotor is received.” Id. at 44:11–12. If the interior of the inserter housing and the recess could be one and the same as Petitioner proposes, there would be no need for claim 7, because it would not further limit claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”); see also Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The concept of claim differentiation ‘normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.’”) (quoting Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, we decline Petitioner’s belated request to construe “recess” to include “an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder.” 13 We acknowledge that Petitioner argued that the entire interior of Gravesen’s housing maps to the claimed “recess,” but this was in the context of comparing the prior art to the claim as construed. Indeed, Petitioner asserted that “the space within [Gravesen’s] housing is an alcove.” Pet. 64– 65 (emphasis added). In sum, Petitioner did not timely argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “recess” includes an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder. We adopt the only construction Petitioner offered and supported in the Petition. In view of the above, we construe “recess” as meaning “an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room).”” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,945,649 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,945,649
• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2023 · PGR2022-00023 · APJ Robert A Pollock · PGR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,993,942 mixed
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,993,942

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.