• Evenflo Company, Inc. v. Baby Jogger II, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 29, 2026 · IPR2025-01122 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Liao or Liao and Cheng; Rolicki is not prior art, and the challenge over Offord ’341 and Offord ’797 fails.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Baby Jogger does not dispute Evenflo’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is that a person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter, “one skilled in the art”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., mechanical engineering or industrial design) and at least two years of product design experience and/or industry experience with juvenile products” and that “[m]ore education can replace product design experience, and vice versa.” Pet 8 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 31–33); PO Resp. generally. We apply that definition here, as it accords with the problems addressed in the prior art and the specification of the ’682 patent.” slip op. at 7

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

    “At the outset, we note that the claim language requires only that “the first seat and the second seat” be arranged in an inline descending configuration, not that the seat’s mounting points or other physical connections be so arranged. Ex. 1010, 17:31–33. Baby Jogger improperly reads “seats” out of the claim and substitutes the seat’s “mounting points” on the frame. A proper reading of the claim language focuses on what happens when both seats are connected to the frame, not where they are so connected. In other words, “when connected to the frame” simply emphasizes that both seats must be connected to the frame to form the inline descending configuration, as opposed to the single stroller embodiment of Figure 1, where there cannot be an inline descending configuration because only one seat is connected to the frame and the other seat is removed, i.e., not connected to the frame. That reading is supported by the specification of the ’682 patent,” slip op. at 9

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

    “We find that testimony persuasive, for it shows what one skilled in the art would have recognized the 2008 Provisional as necessarily disclosing. The relevant inquiry is whether the disclosure of the prior application “convey[s] with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention.” PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306 (emphasis in original; citation omitted). “While a prior application need not contain precisely the same words as are found in the asserted claims, . . . the prior application must indicate to a person skilled in the art that the inventor was ‘in possession’ of the invention as later claimed.” Id. In other words, “to satisfy the written description requirement, ‘the missing descriptive matter must necessarily be present in the [original] application’s specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a disclosure.’”7 Id. (quoting Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). “This requires that the written description actually or inherently disclose the claim element.” Id. at 1306–07. Moreover, a drawing may supply written description for the arrangement it depicts even though the text describes that arrangement in different terms. See Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Prods., Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 1319–23 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Instead, Evenflo’s argument rests on isolating the statement—“A similar sub-frame arrangement is disclosed in [Offord ’797]”—from the remainder of the passage in which that statement appears in order to arrive at a reason to incorporate the reversibility teaching of Offord ’797. However, when that statement is read in the context of the full passage in which it appears, nowhere does that passage suggest reversibility as the reason for referencing Offord ’797. More accurately, it suggests a different reason that relates to a curved lug 108 by which sub-frame 100 rests on the stroller’s main frame 4 to carry the weight of the stroller’s two occupants— When the interface components 100 are attached to the frame assembly 4 they form a sub-frame of the frame assembly 4, and when the child-carrying units are mounted thereon, one behind the other, they are in a compact echelon formation, one of the connector sockets 106 of each component 100 being at a higher level in relation to the ground than the other connector sockets 106. The higher connector socket 106 and further connecting leg 102 are both connected to the respective opposite ends of an upper mounting piece 107. In addition, on the inner side of the lower connector sockets 106 there is a downwardly curved lug 108 which serves to rest upon a part of the basket frame 44, such that the weight of two infants is fully supported by the frame assembly 4. A similar sub-frame arrangement is disclosed in [Offord ’797]. Ex. 1051, 9:23–36 (emphasis added). That passage shows that, rather than reversibility of the sub-frame, the reference to Offord ’797 is more aptly directing the reader to the arrangement and details of a similarly curved lug structure in the stroller sub-frame of Offord ’797. Indeed, Figures 5 and 6 of Offord ’797, reproduced below, disclose just such a curved lug in the context of “corner pieces 20” having “channel 21.” Ex. 1054, 4:10–23.” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 11,731,682 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,731,682
• 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
• Front Line Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · PGR2024-00028 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Fogarty and Chengod; the Board found that combination sufficient for every challenged claim.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “7. Conclusion Based on the entirety of the record, we determine that a person of” slip op. at 13

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

    “3. Analysis In our claim construction analysis “[w]e begin, as we often do, with” slip op. at 18

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

    “the feature of the solid wire being “secured at a proximal-most end thereof within the proximal hub” was added during prosecution to overcome a rejection. Ex. 1002, 573-580. The prior art was distinguished because its guidewire “is configured to be steered and manipulated through the blood vessel, and subsequently removed, and, therefore, cannot be secured at a proximal end thereof to the luer hub 310.” Id., 578-79 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the prosecution history further demonstrates “secured” was not intended to cover removable attachment.” slip op. at 35

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

    “2. Patent Owner’s Arguments Concerning Claim 1 and Our Analysis a. Reasonable Expectation of Success in modifying catheters to less than 6 Fr Patent Owner asserts “Petitioner has failed to perform a proper obviousness analysis by not adequately demonstrating a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Fogarty.” PO Resp. 35. Patent Owner asserts “the category of ‘Fogarty catheters’ is broad and diverse” and “Dr. Resnick admits he has no idea whether Chengod’s or Deaton’s catheters have interior constructions similar to that of the cited Fogarty reference.” Id. at 35‒36 (citing Ex. 2002, 52:16‒57:1). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has therefore not demonstrated that a PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the particular catheter taught by the cited Fogarty patent (Ex. 1004) to the claimed size when considering the shaft has a spring coil and braid in addition to the outer tube and lumen. Id. Petitioner responds “(1) Fogarty did not indicate the catheter’s size; (2) Fogarty catheters smaller than 6 Fr were known and disclosed in Chengod (and Deaton); and (3) sizing Fogarty’s catheter less than 6 Fr would work (i.e., reasonable expectation of success) because it did work.” Pet. Reply 19. Petitioner asserts that Yassinzadeh “shows a catheter that is less than 6 Fr and that includes a similar spring coil construction as found in the Fogarty patent” where the “dilator 150 has a diameter of either 5 Fr or 6 Fr.” Id. at 19‒20 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 86‒97 (“Yassinzadeh”)). Petitioner asserts that Yassinzadeh’s “analogous construction being less than 6 Fr confirms a PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in sizing the catheter in Fogarty (Ex-1004) less than 6 Fr.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 97). Patent Owner responds “Petitioner fails to specify what” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 11,857,737 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,857,737
• Geneoscopy, Inc. v. Exact Sciences CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00459 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over each of the six asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Here, as in our Institution Decision, we do not discern a significant difference between the parties’ respective proposed definitions beyond the number of years of experience after obtaining a doctoral degree. Compare Pet. 12, with Prelim. Resp. 47, and Resp. 19–20; see also DI 7–8. Under either proposed definition, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been very highly skilled and educated. For purposes of this Final Decision, we maintain that Patent Owner’s definition appears to be reasonable (and it falls between Petitioner’s two definitions asserted in the reexamination request and in the Petition). Further, Patent Owner’s proposed definition appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’781 patent itself, for example, Vilkin’s authors are a group of medical doctors and an editor of the journal is a PhD, Joost Louwagie, the named inventor of the ’781 patent, holds a PhD in Biochemistry, and the authors of Itzkowitz are medical doctors and PhDs. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he 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)); see Ex. 1005, 3 (list of authors); Ex. 1016 (Dr. Louwagie profile); Ex. 1055; see also generally Reply (Petitioner did not contest our similar determination at Institution). Therefore, we adopt and use Patent Owner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, set forth above. C.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner asserts that no claim construction is necessary in this proceeding. See generally Pet. Similarly, Patent Owner states that it “does not believe that claim construction is necessary to resolve patentability” in this proceeding. Resp. 21. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” 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)). We agree with the parties that no construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of our Final Decision. D.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Pet. 12. In support of these grounds for unpatentability, Petitioner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Duncan Whitney, PhD. Ex. 1002; Ex. 1080. In support of its positions, Patent Owner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Vadim Backman, PhD, and the Declaration of Peter Wood. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2022; Ex. 2023.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We have no reasonable doubt that aspects of the Cologuard product practice the invention of the ’781 patent’s claims 1 and 3, which are most generally directed to steps of collecting two portions of a fecal sample at home, and combining a respective buffer stabilizer/preservative with each of the two portions for claim 1, and then processing those fecal samples by testing for blood and nucleic acids (e.g., DNA) for claim 3. These appear to be nearly the most basic steps for using the Cologuard kit. See generally Ex. 2032. And, these steps do illustrate a certain ease of use and consumerfriendliness that may be a contributing factor in Cologuard’s success. See, e.g., Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 140–142, 155, 158–159, 170–171.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,634,781 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,634,781
• Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber Food Technology GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00235 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, 10, and 14–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Young and obvious over Young and Norrie; the Johnson and Belk ground was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Provisur proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field); or (2) at least seven years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field). Pet. 12. Weber does not contest Provisur’s framing of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. There being no dispute, we adopt Provisur’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Provisur construes the claim terms “according to their plain and ordinary meanings as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] in view of the specification and prosecution history” and posits that “[n]o terms require an explicit construction to resolve the unpatentability controversy between the parties here.” Pet. 13. Weber appears to agree, stating in the related district court action that “most of [its] patent claims are plain and ordinary . . . [t]hey’re not difficult or complex claims or claim terms.” Ex. 3 US 5,514,032, issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1004, “Young”). 4 US 4,979,269, issued Dec. 25, 1990 (Ex. 1005, “Norrie”). 5 US 6,929,540 B2, issued Aug. 16, 2005 (Ex. 1006, “Johnson”). 6 US 6,198,834 B1, issued Mar. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1007, “Belk”). 1028, 5. This being the case, we do not find the need to expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (confirming that the Board need not construe claim terms where their construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 5

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

    “without first determining how much fat existed to begin with, i.e., prior to the side of meat being trimmed. But, as Provisur correctly notes, Weber ignores what one skilled in the art reasonably would have understood from reading Young’s disclosure as a whole. See Pet. 30–36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–106, 109–112); Pet. Reply 2–12. When that is done, one skilled in the art would have understood that a necessary premise of Young’s determination of the thickness of fat to remain on the loin is knowing the thickness of the fat to begin with, which Young’s imaging system 190 and imaging processing routine 240 determine by first analyzing a series of “fat/lean separation lines” and “edge lines” in the side of meat being trimmed. Pet. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1004, 17:34–62, 18:33–56, 22:53–24:38, Figs. 2, 13); Pet. Reply 3–7 (citing portions of same evidence). More specifically, as described in Young (and articulated by Provisur), the side of meat is placed fat side down on a product support, i.e., platen 20. See Ex. 1004, 7:16–21, Figs. 1, 2. Using several cameras—top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, and fat line camera 198—Young’s imaging system 190 acquires multiple images of the side of meat from various angles and under various lighting conditions to “provide image data regarding each side of [meat].” See id. at 17:34–18:56. That image data is then used by Young’s image processing routine 240 to generate a series of demarcation lines on the side of meat, including: (1) fat/lean separation lines (representing the interface between the loin meat and the fat layer along top, side, and end views of the meat product; and (2) edge lines (representing lines along the outer surface of the meat product). See id. at 22:53–23:67, Figs. 10, 13 (Blocks 242, 246, 250, 254). In addition, “a plurality of points (preferably 20) are generated for each of the fat/lean separation and edge lines using known pattern matching routines.” Id. at 23:28–30, Fig. 13 (Blocks 244, 248, 252, 256); see also id. at 23:61–63 (essentially same). The fat/lean separation and edge lines (and points therein) generated by Young’s image processing routine 240 are then used to calculate certain dimensions and characteristics of the side of meat, such as height, length, and width. Id. at 24:10–22, Fig. 13 (Block 258). As Provisur’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would have understood that the dimension from the fat/lean separation line to the edge line along the outer surface represents the thickness of fat cover on the side of meat, i.e., before the fat is trimmed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 106. Insofar as how that dimension is used, Young states that controller 172 uses “dynamic (real time) image data” of the fat/lean separation and edge lines “to dynamically modify the cutting profile of the loin knife assembly 100 so that the assembly follows a fixed distance from the separation line to provide the optimum fat cover for the loin.” Ex. 1004, 18:32–45; see also id. at 17:48–52 (describing “real time processor” for “image processing routines”). Notably, according to Young, the “fixed distance” represents the “desired” thickness of fat that remains on the loin, after trimming, and “sufficiently keeps the loin from drying out, but doesn’t make the loin look too fat,” although “[o]ther fat thicknesses may be desired in the alternative.” Id. at 20:60–66; see also id. at 10:39–42 (“Through control of the knife blade along several axes, assembly 100 preferably produces an optimum separation between loin and belly, with a desired fat covering left on the loin.” (emphases added)). Because the desired thickness of fat cover is what remains on the loin” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for patent owner

    “argument that Weber considers vital to its dispute of Provisur’s showing for the claimed fat thickness determination. During oral hearing, Weber repeatedly argued that Provisur changed theories midstream, i.e., between the time of the petition and the hearing. See Hrg. Tr. 22:18–24:47; see also id. at 31:14–22, 33:8–18, 34:16–20, 49:17–50:15, 54:16–56:25 (repeating same argument). More specifically, according to Weber, Provisur originally relied only on image data from Young’s “top view” camera as processed in “block 246” of Young’s image processing routine 240 when showing how Young meets the claimed fat thickness determination, whereas now Provisur relies on image data from Young’s “end view” cameras as processed in “Block 254.” Compare PO Sur-Reply 3–6 (focusing on Young’s “top view camera” in “block 246”), with Hrg. Tr. 27:4–16 (“[Block] 246, which is what they relied on, is processing images from the top-view camera in Young’s system. It is generating lines from the top-view camera in Young’s system. What they are newly trying to rely on today, for the first time, is Block 254 that is discussed toward the bottom of column 23 in Young, and that analyzes different images from a different camera. It is the end camera. It generates different lines. It demonstrates an end fat/lean line and an end edge line. Prior to today’s hearing, neither Petitioner, nor its expert, had ever discussed Block 254. You will not find a single reference to 254 in their papers, nor have they discussed the end edge line. It is completely new today. It finds absolutely no support in the record.” (emphases added)). We disagree with Weber’s contention. As shown and described in the petition, Provisur relies on more than simply Young’s “top view” camera and “block 246.” See Pet. 29–31. Rather, in its petition, Provisur annotates Young’s Figure 2 to show that image data from all three cameras of “imaging system 190”—“top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, [and] fat line camera 198”—play a role in the determination of fat thickness.8 Id. at 30. Moreover, Provisur cites the entire process depicted in “Figure 13” and described in columns “22:53–24:38” of Young as critical to the determination. Id. at 31. Those cited portions of Young involve not only the analysis of fat/lean and edge lines from “top view” images (block 246), but also the analysis of fat/lean and edge lines from “end view” images (blocks 250 and 254). See Ex. 1004, 23:12–24:13. In other words, Provisur’s showing for the claimed fat thickness determination is based on Young’s collective analysis of all those images. Indeed, Provisur’s expert confirms as much when confronted by Weber on cross-examination— Q. How does [Young] use the other cameras to identify that fat/lean separation line? A. Again, this is a -- this is a three-dimensional product that’s not regular, and all the views basically are needed to be able to describe that complex three-dimensional shape, so that the knife will be able to cut at that -- at that line, offset by whatever desired thickness there is, on that three-dimensional shape. Ex. 2006, 25:15–27:19 (emphasis added). 8 Indeed, contrary to Weber’s assertion, Provisur highlights “fat lean separation camera 198,” not top view camera 196, as most critical to the determination of fat thickness. Pet. 31. In the end, we reject the notion that Provisur changed theories” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,321 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,321
• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21

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

    “The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25

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

    “b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,770,121
• Mastercard Incorporated And Mastercard International Incorporated v. Ov Loop, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01289 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Collinge; the Board did not reach the anticipation grounds based on Collinge or the grounds based on Fiske.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in electrical and computer engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience in the field of secure payment system,” and that “[a]dditional education in the field could be substituted for industry experience, and vice versa.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner does not suggest that its proposed level of ordinary skill materially differs from the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See id. We find, on the current record, that the ’171 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’171 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We would have reached the same conclusions in this Decision had we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “In light of the lack of any dispute over the Second Construction, a construction we find consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, we need not resolve whether the claim language also encompasses Petitioner’s First Construction. Moreover, as explained below, we find Collinge renders obvious the subject matter of the limitation under either construction. See infra Section III.D.5. For the foregoing reasons, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because here Petitioner is not relying on some other disclosure to fill a missing limitation absent from Collinge, but is instead relying only on Collinge and the knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art would possess when appreciating the teachings of Collinge. Petitioner is not suggesting Collinge needed to be modified to add the use of an APDU, but, rather, that Collinge’s disclosure already contemplated it based on the well-known background of the art. Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that “the Collinge Provisionals state the disclosures therein are intended to be used in a ‘standard’ PayPass transaction,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “the PayPass Specification (and EMV Specifications, with which the PayPass Specification complies) when reading Collinge.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1009, 8, 14–15, 22–23; Ex. 1050 ¶ 22). in a “standard” PayPass transaction and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, at a minimum, that it would have been obvious from Collinge that the “first set of data” (i.e., the encrypted payload in Collinge) would have been “usable” by the application of Collinge “to formulate an application protocol data unit response,” as required by limitation [1.C]. Petitioner further demonstrates how Collinge discloses that the “first set of data” was “useable by the application to formulate” an APDU response in addressing limitation [1.E–3], which specifically requires “generating a response.” See Pet. Reply 11 (explaining that “[d]etails of how [the encrypted payload] is used to formulate an APDU response are explained where that is separately claimed”); see also id. (citing Pet. 48–50 (addressing limitation [1.E-3])).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,032,171 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,032,171
• Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01312 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 16, 17, and 19-21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Lundahl and Larsen.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “justification for requiring a POSITA to have both an engineering degree and a medical degree. We agree, insofar as Petitioner has not clearly set out any particular explanation or evidence in support of its dual-degree requirement. In all other respects, we note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. Because we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed definition is reasonable and consistent with the ’028 patent and the cited art, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. In any event, our decision whether to institute does not turn on this level of skill determination.” slip op. at 10

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

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b); 37 C.F.R. § 100(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). See 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)). Petitioner and Patent Owner assert that the Board need not construe any claims for the purpose of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 24. We agree.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on our review of the Petition, Petitioner explains that a driving motivation for a POSITA to modify Lundahl to include Larsen’s five panels is “to increase the flexibility of the device to ensure the light panels could be maintained at a distance of 2-4′′ from surface of the treatment area, whether the face, arm, or back, etc.” Pet. 29 (emphasis added). As Lundahl’s device is not flexible, and such flexibility would improve its ability to treat areas other than an average sized face, we determine, at this stage in the proceeding, that this motivation for the combination is sufficient.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightInstituted

    “would have been motivated to modify Lundahl’s device by incorporating Larsen’s use of LEDs on the surface of the light applicators in place of Lundahl’s fluorescent tubes with a reasonable expectation of success. Prelim. Resp. 55. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s modification is based on improper hindsight bias because “Petitioner cherry-picks Larsen’s LEDs (together with the five panels) and purports to arrange them according to the [sic] ‘the uneven spacing’ of Lundahl’s fluorescent tubes.” Id. at 56 (citing Pet. 46–49; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 175–80). According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner cannot on the one hand argue that a ‘POSITA would have understood that Larsen’s applicator is configured to uniformly illuminate a treatment surface of the patient,’ while on the other ignore Larsen’s teaching that the ‘light sources 17 are placed in regular row arrangements.’” Id. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s proposed modification “mish-mashes aspects of Lundahl and Larsen ([while] avoiding the overall teachings of [challenged] claims.” Id. at 56–57. As discussed above, based on our consideration of the current record, Petitioner has provided sufficient motivation for employing Larsen’s flexible five panel configuration. These panels in Larsen already use LEDs as their light source. So, in our view, Petitioner’s incorporation of the five panels includes the lighting source, i.e., LEDs, for those panels taught by Larsen. Further, we note that Petitioner has persuasively asserted that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Larsen’s LEDs as they are more cost-efficient and last longer. See Pet. 31.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,697,028
• Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Noble Innovations NC L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2025 · IPR2023-01254 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 5–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Grounds 1–4; each ground relies on the Board’s combinations of Wolcott or Young with Davidson, with or without Fitz-Gibbon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner has sufficiently, and we find accurately, mapped the limitations of the challenged claims to the disclosures of Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, identified reasons with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the references, and shown that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in such a predictable endeavor. Regarding the reasons to combine Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz- Gibbon, they are each analogous art as each is directed to solving the problem of retaining dentifrice, a pellet or any dentifrice, on a toothbrush, within a dedicated space between its bristles. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (the prior art is from the same field of endeavor as the invention and also addresses the particular problem with which the invention/inventor is involved); see generally Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207 (Mr. Fletcher testifying to the same). We agree that the prior art combination and asserted modifications would be predictable and well within the level of ordinary skill to accomplish, making success entirely expected. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207; Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the advantages disclosed by Davidson regarding its bristles 13 and well 12 retaining any type of dentifrice would similarly advantage Wolcott’s toothbrush, which is designed to similarly retain a dentifrice pellet in a recess using bristles. See Ex. 1009, 1:1–41, 2:39–3:1, 3:55–4:9, Figs. 4, 5; Ex. 1010, 2:11–14, 2:24– 27, 3:20–24, Figs. 1–3; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 121–122. Similarly, Fitz-Gibbon discloses its toothbrush’s bristles or, more accurately, tufts of bristles 13, are disposed at an angle toward, and to hold, dentifrice in a chamber/pocket; we find this feature, which Fitz-Gibbon describes as “exceedingly valuable,” would also have been reasonably incorporated into the toothbrush achieved by the combination of Wolcott and Davidson, with an expectation of success. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 204–207; Ex. 1011, 2:58–87. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have had ample reason to combine Wolcott and Davidson, or Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, and the result of doing so would have been obvious.” slip op. at 38

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art or POSITA, but Patent Owner neither proposes a definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan nor opposes Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Mr. Kodama, testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan as of the invention date would be defined identically as proposed by Petitioner. Ex. 2001 ¶ 46. We accept and use Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’332 patent, itself. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as 10 Petitioner uses the acronym POSITA to reference the person of ordinary skill in the art. 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)). C.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the bristles must be angled and disagree with Patent Owner. As explained above, it remains generally uncontested that the claim language “angled capsule retaining elements” includes within its scope angled bristles. This is well supported by the intrinsic record: only one type of angled structure is disclosed in the ’332 patent as functioning to retain an oral care capsule on a toothbrush, and that structure is “a plurality of angled bristles adapted to retain an oral care capsule in the capsule receiving zone.”12 Ex. 1001, 2:57–67, 4:62–5:13. The ’332 patent explains 11 Patent Owner actually cites “‘627 patent app” at paragraph 36,” without ever mentioning any exhibit of record in the proceeding. We understand Patent Owner to refer to Petitioner’s Exhibit 1003, as this is the only occurrence of the ’627 application of record. 12 The ’332 patent also describes “a movable retaining element,” which is a separate structure from the angled bristles that comprise the angled capsule retaining elements, that is described as some sort of openable access to the that bristles are angled toward the center of a capsule receiving zone such that an oral care capsule can be loaded there-into by spreading apart the angled bristles, inserting the oral care capsule past the angled bristles, and depositing the oral care capsule in the capsule receiving zone; thereafter the angled bristles relax to their angled state and retain the oral care capsule. Id.; see also id.at 7:19–42, 9:54–10:11 (describing how a dispensing device can accomplish this loading).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner has sufficiently, and we find accurately, mapped the limitations of the challenged claims to the disclosures of Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, identified reasons with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the references, and shown that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in such a predictable endeavor. Regarding the reasons to combine Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz- Gibbon, they are each analogous art as each is directed to solving the problem of retaining dentifrice, a pellet or any dentifrice, on a toothbrush, within a dedicated space between its bristles. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (the prior art is from the same field of endeavor as the invention and also addresses the particular problem with which the invention/inventor is involved); see generally Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207 (Mr. Fletcher testifying to the same). We agree that the prior art combination and asserted modifications would be predictable and well within the level of ordinary skill to accomplish, making success entirely expected. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207; Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the advantages disclosed by Davidson regarding its bristles 13 and well 12 retaining any type of dentifrice would similarly advantage Wolcott’s toothbrush, which is designed to similarly retain a dentifrice pellet in a recess using bristles. See Ex. 1009, 1:1–41, 2:39–3:1, 3:55–4:9, Figs. 4, 5; Ex. 1010, 2:11–14, 2:24– 27, 3:20–24, Figs. 1–3; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 121–122. Similarly, Fitz-Gibbon discloses its toothbrush’s bristles or, more accurately, tufts of bristles 13, are disposed at an angle toward, and to hold, dentifrice in a chamber/pocket; we find this feature, which Fitz-Gibbon describes as “exceedingly valuable,” would also have been reasonably incorporated into the toothbrush achieved by the combination of Wolcott and Davidson, with an expectation of success. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 204–207; Ex. 1011, 2:58–87. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have had ample reason to combine Wolcott and Davidson, or Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, and the result of doing so would have been obvious.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,881,332 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,881,332
• National Beef Packing Company, LLC v. Institute For Environmental Health, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00186 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review on all challenged claims and all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” A decision to institute under § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). In addition, if the Board institutes trial, it will “institute on all grounds in the petition.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 5–6 (Nov. 2019); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, for the reasons described below, we institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “Office (“USPTO”) issued a Memorandum titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Memorandum”)11, which states, among other things, that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have 11 Available at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_ discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_2022 0621_.pdf. reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memorandum 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). By email dated November 25, 2024, Petitioner requested leave to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to address, inter alia, its proposed submission of a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 3001. We denied Petitioner’s request for briefing, but granted its request to submit the stipulation. Id. The Sotera stipulation avers that “if IPR Nos. IPR2024- 00183, IPR2024-00185, and IPR2024-00186 are instituted, National Beef will not pursue in the related district court proceeding, Inst. for Envtl. Health, Inc. v. Nat’ / Beef Packing Co., LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00826 (D. Del. Aug. 1, 2023), any ground National Beef raised or reasonably could have raised in the aforementioned IPRs,” and that the stipulation “binds National Beef in the related district court proceeding, Inst. for Envtl. Health, Inc. v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co., LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00826 (D. Del. Aug. 1, 2023).” Ex. 1064. Applying the guidance provided in the Memorandum, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution in this proceeding under Fintiv because Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenInstituted

    “Thus, Petitioner has accounted for each step/element of independent claims 1 and 37 as taught by the combination of ICMSF and Gombas, and has also provided a reason why, with rational underpinnings, the prior art would have been combined and modified, with a reasonable expectation of success. On the current record, including Patent Owner’s arguments that we considered and are addressed in detail below, Petitioner’s evidence for this ground is sufficient to provide a reasonable likelihood of success in demonstrating unpatentability of at least one claim.” slip op. at 31

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

    “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 may impact our decision. We also agree with Patent Owner that the ’771 patent provides definitions that guide the understanding of the term “lots” including: The term “test lot” or “reportable lot” as used herein to refer to an assemblage of one or more specimens of a medium or process (e.g. assemblage of specimens of air, water, solids or of products of a production process, etc.), where such assemblage can be sampled by taking portions of the one or more specimens thereof, and where the one or more specimens of the assemblage are operationally linked in a manner (e.g., proximity, time, process step, etc.) whereby information derived about sampled portions is operationally applicable to all specimens of the assemblage, and thus to the test lot. In particular instances, portions are synonymous with specimens. Ex. 1003, 5:43‒54. The ’771 patent similarly provides definitions for “product portion,” “test lot sample,” and “composite lot-unit” that provide significant guidance and clarity as to the meaning of these terms. Ex. 1003, 5:60‒6:4, 6:12‒29, 7:49‒63. 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)). We decline to expressly interpret this term at this time.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,637,771

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.