- Encube Ethicals PTV. Ltd. v. Dermavant Sciences GmbHAdverse judgmentPTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00834 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on all challenged claims, 1–4, 6–10, 16, 18, 21, and 22, following their disclaimer.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Terminate Proceeding and Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Adverse Judgment (collectively “Motion”). The parties jointly request that the Board enter adverse judgment in light of the disclaimer filed by Patent Owner disclaiming all challenged claims. Mot. 1 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2)). The Motion attaches as an exhibit a disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), filed January 28, 2025, of claims 1–4, 6–10, 16, 18, 21, and 22 of the ’088 patent, which constitute all of the claims challenged in the inter partes review. Ex. 2001; Paper 1, 3.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Accordingly, we grant the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Adverse Judgment. This Adverse Judgment is sufficient to dispose of this proceeding and Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate is denied as moot.1” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 11,590,088 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01114 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 2, 27–30, 32–36, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 47, 52, 54, 57, and 59, exercising discretion because this was the fourth-ranked parallel petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise. 10 A petitioner is not entitled to an unlimited number of petitions (see Trial Practice Guide 59–61); instead, we determine whether the circumstances justify additional petitions (see id. at 59–60). This approach conforms with the rationale behind imposing a word count limit on petitions. See id. at 39 (discussing the reasons for establishing word count limits and urging parties to present “concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.”). i.e., the analysis of claim 2, the summary of the ’754 patent and prior art, the articulation of the level of skill in the art and claim construction, and the other preliminary comments—and we are not persuaded that they are sufficiently concise to support Petitioner’s argument. Claim 2 is only fifteen lines long, and its technology is relatively simple, yet Petitioner’s analysis of this claim stretches for seventeen pages. See Pet. 24–41. Petitioner provides no general information about the technology and submits that no claims need to be construed (id. at 7), yet Petitioner provides a five-page summary of the ’754 patent and its prosecution history (see id. at 2–6). Also, Petitioner provides a twelve-page summary of Ahn and Chaudhri (see id. at 7–19), despite the fact that neither reference is particularly long. Indeed, as Patent Owner notes, Petitioner was able to remove nearly 1,000 words from these common sections in at least one of the petitions. See Ranking Response 3–4. Because Petitioner’s analysis in the common sections does not appear to be concise, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s use of approximately 8,350 words in those sections justifies the large number of petitions.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01086 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 2, 8, 10, 16, 24, 26, and 224 because this petition ranked last among seven parallel petitions.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00183 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 10, 11, 13–20, 22, 23, and 26–33 because the asserted combinations of ICMSF, Hughes, and Price showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’584 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’584 patent on the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (POSA/POSITA), “would most likely have an advanced degree in microbiology, food science, or animal science and at least two years of work experience but may alternatively have a bachelor’s degree in those areas and at least four years of experience with validation methodologies.” Pet. 11. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a working knowledge of microbiology,” “would have been involved in developing sampling and testing methodologies for analysis of food products (“validation methodologies”),” and “would have been familiar with relevant scientific literature and industry regulations, directives, and guidelines relating to validation methodologies.” Id.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “lots” does not require construction because on the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of the term, and neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identify any way that claim construction impacts the decision. 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 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“This definition requires that a “validation” determines that “a particular sample tests negative.” The initial definition sentence makes no mention of “cleared for release” as necessary for “validation.” Rather, the definition only refers to “cleared for release” in the more limited situation where a particular composite sample “tests negative all single-unit production lot samples,” and even then, the “cleared for release” is a separate step that occurs after the samples are “validated.”” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,534,584 - Intel Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-01008 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that the challenged claims do not need construction to demonstrate unpatentability. Pet. 14. Petitioner, however, notes that the parties in the ITC proceeding identified above dispute the meaning of several claim terms. Id. (citing Ex. 1026). Petitioner specifically notes that “the parties dispute what is required of independent claims 1, 5, and 16 to ‘determin[e] how many pixels’ to filter in each block.” Id. (citing Ex. 1026, 6–7). Petitioner argues that “ITC Respondent Lenovo mathematical basis (no relationship) with the pixel values of the pixels in said neighboring block’” (id. (citing Ex. 1026, 6–7)), but Patent Owner “contends that no construction is necessary,” “and the ‘plain meaning’ does not foreclose some ‘mathematical basis’ existing as long as separate decision values are calculated for each block” (id. (citing Ex. 1027, 14–19)). Petitioner indicates that Ground 1 adopts Patent Owner’s broader construction from the ITC proceeding and Ground 2 adopts Lenovo’s narrower construction. Id. at 14–15. Patent Owner argues that “none of the asserted grounds disclose or render obvious the Challenged Claims under the plain meaning of the claims (which is [Patent Owner’s] proposed construction) or under Lenovo’s narrower proposed construction.” Prelim. Resp. 29. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, we are not persuaded that modifying Aksu in view of Gonzalez in the manner proposed by Petitioner overcomes this problem. As noted above, Petitioner asserts that, in the proposed combination, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the Laplacian’s output would be compared directly to a threshold based on β—just like Aksu’s difference calculations—to determine how many pixels to filter.” Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1019, 13:15–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 406–410). We disagree with this assertion, however, because it relies on erroneously equating the output of calculations (i.e., |r1-rj| and |r1-ri+1|). In other words, Aksu’s difference calculations, although used in setting dr, are not the same as dr; and we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered comparing Gonzalez’s Laplacian output to threshold β because Aksu discloses comparing its difference calculations to β. As noted above, we are not directed to any disclosure in Aksu of comparing dr to β. In addition, Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony on this point is not persuasive. Specifically, Dr. Schonfeld testifies that “dr can simply be defined as the output of the Laplacian (dr=|r3-2r2+r1|), and dr could be directly compared to a threshold based on β.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 408 (underline emphasis added). This testimony, however, is entitled to little weight because Dr. Schonfeld fails to provide a sufficient underlying basis for his opinion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail). Moreover, opining that output of the Laplacian, dr, could be directly compared to β does not establish sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“G. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 64–66; Paper 8. Petitioner argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate in this case. Pet. 85–86; Paper 7. Because we are not persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim as discussed above, we need not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial under § 325(d).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,641,841 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - PTAB · Oct 31, 2024 · IPR2024-00858 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 5–7 and 16–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 and 16–19 are unpatentable over Samartgis and at least claims 5 and 19 over Leoncavallo.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel district court action, and, in doing so, relies heavily on the district court’s scheduled trial date of September 22, 2025. See Prelim. Resp. 51, 54. While the district court’s scheduled trial date may be earlier than the Board’s projected deadline for a final written decision here, CamelBak’s reliance on that date is misplaced. The Office takes the position that a district court’s scheduled trial dates are “unreliable and often change” and that a more reliable indicator is the district court’s “median time-to-trial for civil actions,” which, in this case, would place the district court’s trial date after the projected deadline of any final written decision here. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022) (“Director’s Interim Procedure”), at 8–9. Thus, CamelBak’s reliance 5 US D586,184 S, issued Feb. 10, 2009 (Ex. 1006, “Miller”). on the district court’s scheduled trial date has no bearing on whether we should discretionarily deny institution. Of greater relevance is Trove’s express stipulation not to pursue the same grounds in the district court action as advanced in the petition or any ground that relies on the prior art references cited in the petition. See Pet. 100. Although not exactly a Sotera stipulation, the Office nonetheless recognizes that such stipulations further mitigate concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between us and the district court. See Director’s Interim Procedure, at 7–8. Thus, given Trove’s stipulation and the fact that the district court’s median time-to-trial is after the projected deadline of our final written decision here, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree that Samartgis is the substantially the same as the corresponding design patent cited during prosecution, mainly because the design patent fails to show the closure retention mechanism that is clearly shown and described in Samartgis and goes to the very heart of Trove’s showing of anticipation and obviousness. Compare Ex. 1004, Figs. 3–5 (showing lug members 15, 16 and ramp sections 23, 25, 27), with Ex. 2001, Figs. 1–8 (omitting any depiction of lug members or ramp sections). Thus, Samartgis clearly was not considered. And, although Leoncavallo and Miller may arguably have been considered during prosecution, “[w]hen instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 42 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). As such, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 325(d). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Trove proposes that one 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. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–30). CamelBak appears to agree. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (“Patent Owner assumes Petitioner has correctly stated the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not set forth its own definition.”). At this stage, we see no reason to depart from Trove’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’252 patent.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“At this stage, we do not see the need to resolve the § 112(f) issue in light of Trove’s express and unrebutted showing that the prior art teaches sufficiently analogous structure to that identified in the ’252 patent for performing the disputed functional limitations of the claimed “closure retention mechanism.” See Pet. 35 (asserting that “[Samartgis’s] lug members 15 and 16 also are at least equivalent to the structure identified in the specification (i.e., the two or more spaced-apart tabs on the handle)” because “[l]ike the opposed tabs of the ’252 patent, the lug members 15 and 16 are projections that extend from the inner surface of the handle to engage the closure.”). Indeed, at this stage, CamelBak chooses not to address Trove’s showing in this regard, instead arguing that “the construction of ‘closure retention mechanism’ is irrelevant because [Trove] fails to show lug members 15 and 16 are configured to meet other limitations of claims 5 and 19.” Prelim. Resp. 20 n.7. That said, to the extent either party believes it is necessary for final resolution of patentability, they should explore the § 112(f) issue further during the trial phase.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,905,252 - Vicor Corporation v. Delta Electronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00704 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because neither Ground 1 nor Ground 2 showed a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018). For the reasons below, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’580 patent, and we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“interpretations are appropriate. Controlling law requires construing claims in an inter partes review using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). “In determining the meaning of [a] disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The Petition does not even purport to apply this controlling law with its Ground 1. In fact, Petitioner acknowledges that its Ground 1 does not apply a “proper” claim construction, describing Ground 1 in contrast to Ground 2 as follows: “Ground 1 is essentially based on what we read their infringement contentions to be, . . . Ground 2 [applies] what we view as the proper construction of the patent.” Ex. 1022, 7:17–8:16. Accordingly, based on this record, we determine Petitioner has not supported the claim interpretations on which its Ground 1 relies, and Petitioner therefore has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its challenge asserted as Ground 1.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“But Petitioner states that in the combination presented in Ground 2, “a skilled artisan would have set the current limit threshold based on the current-handling capability of the VTM to protect the VTM from over-current.” Pet. 49–50. “In this circumstance, the PRM would never reach an over-current condition. Rather, the PRM would operate within its normal range.” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 144) (emphasis added). But Petitioner’s description of the proposed combination—in which “the PRM would never reach an over-current condition”—cannot be reconciled with Petitioner’s showings for the “over-current” limitations, which require, e.g., “when the resonant converter generates the over-current” (limitation [1c]). For example, for limitation [1c], Petitioner states “when the VTM exceeds its normal operating current, the PRM (with a duty cycle current limiter as taught by Hwang) would reduce its duty cycle, which would reduce its output voltage and output current, and thus reduce the input voltage and current to the VTM.” Pet. 55–56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158). But Petitioner and its declarant both state that in the combination proposed in Ground 2, “the PRM would never reach an over-current conduction.” Pet. 50; Ex. 1003 ¶ 144; see Pet. 59 (addressing similar language in limitation [1c]), 61 (addressing limitation [13c]), 63 (addressing limitation [17d]). Petitioner does not explain how those positions can be reconciled, nor does Petitioner adequately explain, much less support, a claim interpretation that would be satisfied by a proposed combination in which the resonant converter never generates an over-current. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in the challenges presented as Petitioner’s Ground 2.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in the field of power engineering.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–42). Patent Owner does not specifically address the level of ordinary skill. At this stage, Petitioner’s proposal appears consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’580 patent and prior art of record and is supported by expert testimony. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Upon this preliminary record and for the purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception that we delete the words “at least.”” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,711,580 - PTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00327 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1 and 2 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Demircin renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the evidence currently of record, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’303 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition based on the parallel district court litigation. Prelim. Resp. 33– 39 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential)). Petitioner, however, presented a Sotera stipulation.8 Pet. 76 (citing Ex. 1029). Thus, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution here. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“3. Preliminary Analysis Regarding Claim 1 At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that the teachings of Demircin satisfy each limitation of claim 1. On the current record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that Demircin does not satisfy the parties’ agreed construction. As cited by Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. 33, 43), Demircin teaches that when additional bandwidth becomes available, NAL units that were previously discarded or only partially transmitted may be transmitted in a delayed manner (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34, 104– 128, Fig. 13, 14). We are currently persuaded that Demircin teaches or reasonably suggests that such delayed NAL units could be received out of order and would be rearranged, as claimed.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,986,303 - Forte Biosciences, Inc. v. University Of MassachusettsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · PGR2023-00014 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable for lack of written description and enablement under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the § 103 challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition, except to modify the level such that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with well-known inhibitors of IL-15 and IL-15R as described in the ’505 patent and recognized in the art as of April 2017.” Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). We adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art with Patent Owner’s proposed modification because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’505 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“this stage of the proceeding and that all terms are to given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 23; Resp. 38. We agree. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, we determine that no claim construction is necessary.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Finally, we are reminded that “a sufficient description of the genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. “[F]unctional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Here, however, the challenged claims are directed to methods using a wide range of different types of compounds purported to be “IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors” that are not part of a known or readily identifiable class, do not target the same biological pathway, do not have any common structural features, and do not appear to always function as inhibitors. See Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1575–77, 1579; Ex. 1046, 189:4–19, 191:15–192:15, 193:18–196:22, 198:21–199:21, 197:12–198:19, 200:1–8, 207:11–14, 203:3–10, 207:15–21, 236:12–24; Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 19–23, 56, 63–64, 80–85. Therefore, we find there is neither a representative number of species disclosed, nor a sufficient” slip op. at 21
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“598 U.S. at 610. A “specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention. What is reasonable in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art.” Id. at 613. But the person of ordinary skill in the art cannot be left with merely “a hunting license” or obligated to engage in “painstaking experimentation” or “trial and error” to “see what works.” Id. at 614. Patent Owner argues that “the IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors disclosed in the specification were known in the art and “share the common ‘general quality’ of inhibiting a pathway known to be relevant to and having ‘particular fitness for the particular purposes’ of (id.) treating certain autoimmune diseases by blocking IL-15 signaling.” Sur-reply 14 (citing Ex. 1011, 22; Ex. 2013, 3; Ex. 2017, Abstr.; Ex. 2024, 17; Ex. 2025, 2–3, 6; Ex. 2027, 4; Ex. 2028, 9; Ex. 2029, 4; Ex. 2031, 23; Ex. 2118, 53:22–54:9; Ex. 1018, 1; Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 52–63, 80–83, 130; Ex. 1046, 231:20–25). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing, however, because the record shows that different IL-15-specific inhibitors may operate in different ways that may result in differential effects, some of which may not include inhibition at all. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶21, 23, 40, 71; Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1576, 1579; Ex. 2013, 4:1– 8; Ex. 2014, 4:9–15; Ex. 2015 ¶ 22; Ex. 2025, 4:34–5:2; Ex. 1046, 166:21– 24, 168:25–169:5, 207:23–209:22, 210:4–17, 210:24–211:6; Ex. 1011, 1:67–2:4; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 116, 134. Thus, we find that the record supports Drs. Abbas and Plott’s testimony, which we credit, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to hunt down and test every compound through painstaking Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–90, 92; Ex. 1047 ¶ 53 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that the “specification of the ’505 patent is essentially a black box (so far as which aspects of IL-15 signaling it inhibits and how it operates), leaving the reader to guess through trial and error which molecules might operate similarly to ChMBC7 and which do not.”); Ex. 1004 ¶ 61 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that “from the perspective of a clinician, the amount of experimentation required would be extremely burdensome and success would be speculative.”); Ex. 2007, 93:16–97:25, 38:208; Ex. 1046, 234:20–236:11. This is due to the fact that the claims (without limit) encompass any inhibition of any one of the various types of IL-15 signaling and various versions of the receptor, and even implicate other compounds that act on different targets but which inhibit the IL-15 signaling pathway. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 53, 68; Ex. 2005 ¶ 71; Ex. 1046, 254:4–255:11, 158:12–160:20. The evidence has shown that IL-15/IL-15R inhibition is complicated and unpredictable, with some inhibitors also capable of enhancing forms of IL-15 signaling rather than preventing it. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 25–26, 53; Ex. 2013, 2:10–18; Ex. 2014, 2:12–20; Ex. 2015 ¶ 3; Ex. 2025, 2:10–18; Ex. 2078, 267.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 11,278,505 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,278,505
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.