- Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00442 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims, 1–20.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“May 22, 2025, after Petitioner filed its Petition, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer, disclaiming claims 1–20 of the ’154 patent. Ex. 2001. Under our rules, “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e); see Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (explaining how Rule 42.107(e) operates in the case of a pre-institution disclaimer of all claims) (precedential). Because we cannot institute trial on disclaimed claims and Patent Owner has disclaimed all of the challenged claims, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,627,154 - 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 - Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00073 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable: Zane anticipates claims 1–4, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 22; other claims are held unpatentable on the stated obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Upon consideration of the evidence and argument presented, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to categorically discount the weight of Dr. Zane’s testimony. First, that testimony concerns what is already disclosed in 3 US 7,948,468 B2 (“the Zane patent”), which issued on May 24, 2011 to Regan A. Zane and Montu Doshi and was assigned to the Regents of the University of Colorado. Ex. 2005. perspective of a POSITA.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 32. Patent Owner cites no evidence to suggest otherwise.4 PO Resp. 29–40; PO Sur-Reply 20–26. Second, the Zane patent is assigned to the University of Colorado, and Dr. Zane testifies that he does not currently receive remuneration for that patent and does not believe he ever received remuneration for that patent. Ex. 2004, 64:12–17, 69:9–22. Third, for the reasons explained below, we find Patent Owner’s reliance on Glaxo and Medtronic inapposite given the facts presented here.” slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“We need not resolve this dispute and dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Strike as moot for the following reason. One of the issues disputed by the parties was whether all shift registers require a clock to shift bits. See Pet. 34 (“All shift registers must have a clock connected to them for shifting the bits.”); PO Resp. 20 (“[S]hift registers without clocks are not only possible, but a well-understood electronic circuit with a variety of uses.”). We using a clock to shift the bits corresponding to PWM signal E through a shift register because a clock would be needed to ensure signal E was periodic with period 40 as disclosed by Thomas. That is, we resolved the parties dispute without reference to the dictionary definition of “strobe” Patent Owner introduced during Dr. Zane’s deposition. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to strike as moot.” slip op. at 58
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the invention as someone that would have had “a bachelor’s degree in physics, electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately two years of experience in the fields of LED technology, backlights, LED devices and control thereof, or other related fields.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–35). Petitioner further contends that “advanced education in the fields of physics, electrical engineering, or a related field can compensate for lesser work experience in the relevant fields” and that the merits of the Petition “do[] not turn on this specific definition of the level of ordinary skill.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this definition. PO Resp. 4–5. In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art to be reasonable and commensurate with the problems and solutions disclosed in the prior art and, omitting the open-ended phrase 2 Applicant Admitted Prior Art continue to do so here.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, a claim is construed “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.” Id. However, “[t]he Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends “no claim terms need to be expressly construed to resolve the invalidity issues in this Petition.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 5. In our Institution Decision, we declined to construe any claim term because we found no term required express construction. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375. We maintain that finding here.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 7,843,148 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,843,148 - 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 - PTAB · Nov 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Sturman and Ho.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“(“Decision Denying Institution” or “DDI”). Petitioner filed a request for Director Review and the Director vacated and remanded our Decision Denying Institution. Paper 11 (Petitioner’s Request for Director Review); Paper 12 (“Remand Dec.” or “Remand Decision”). Specifically, the Director directed that we: shall issue a new decision on institution resolving the claim construction of “a non-promotional background object.” Consistent with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Board should resolve the proper meaning of that term by first assessing the intrinsic evidence, and then consulting extrinsic evidence if necessary. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Slyde Analytics, LLC, IPR2024-00040, Paper 14 at 7–8 (Vidal Aug. 2, 2024) (discussing the Phillips framework). The Board shall consider all remaining necessary issues, and determine whether to institute trial consistent with this decision. Id. at 7–8 (footnote omitted).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Sturman and Ho. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–10 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’089 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. See Prelim. Resp. 26–36. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 42
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“draws a distinction between foreground and background objects. Specifically, the prosecution history makes it clear that foreground objects are “in the forefront of the game play as primary objects to be manipulated or used during game play” and that background objects are “outside the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components.” Ex. 1002, 85. However, whether an object is “outside the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components” is based solely on the subjective perspective of the user. That is, what one user may consider a primary focus or expected object, another might consider outside the primary focus and unexpected. As the Director made clear in the Remand Decision, it is “improper[]” to have a claim construction “based on the subjective perspective of a user.” Remand Dec. 7; see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“We are not prepared to assign a meaning to a patent claim that depends on the state of mind of the accused infringer.”). Accordingly, we cannot and do not adopt that as our construction of the term background. Not finding a construction of “background” based on the intrinsic evidence, we turn to the extrinsic evidence. See Remand Dec. 7 (“[T]he Board should resolve the proper meaning of that term by first assessing the intrinsic evidence, and then consulting extrinsic evidence if necessary.” (emphasis added)). Specifically, as part of the Decision Denying Institution, we considered various dictionary definitions of the word “background.” According to those definitions, “background” refers to “[t]he part of a pictorial representation that appears to be in the distance and that provides relief for the principal objects in the foreground.” Ex. 3002 (AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY); see also Ex. 3003 (“the scenery or ground behind something,” “the part of a painting representing what lies behind objects in the foreground”) (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY). Consistent with those dictionary definitions, we construe the term “background” to mean the part of a pictorial representation that is not in the foreground. The prosecution history provides more useful guidance as to what a “non-promotional” object is. As the applicant argued in the Amendment discussed above, a non-promotional object is one “which does not have an ‘area’ in which advertisements directly appear, but instead represents a ‘hot spot’ that, upon activation, causes ‘hidden promotional content’ to then appear.” Ex. 1002, 85–86. In other words, a non-promotional object does not display a promotional message unless the hotspot is activated. This understanding of the meaning of non-promotional is consistent with an earlier argument (Ex. 1002, 113–25) the applicant made during the prosecution of the ’089 patent.12 At that time, the applicant argued: In an exemplary embodiment, the location in-game may be represented by a non-promotional object, such as a blank chalk board depicted in the background of the gaming environment. See Applicant’s Specification at ¶ [0045]. Upon activating the hot spot (e.g., by throwing a dart at the chalk board), a promotional message may be drawn on the chalk board and displayed to the user. See id. In other words, Applicant’s amended claims 15 and 22, inter alia, may present promotional content once the game user activates, unknowingly, a “hot spot” associated with a non-promotional object—the non-promotional object is not an ordinary or visible place for advertisement, the 12 This argument was made on December 2, 2011, which is prior to the amendment adding the term background on July 15, 2013. Compare Ex. 1002, 117 (then pending claim 15 without the word “background”) with id. at 80 (amendment adding “background” to claim 15). user does not know that the object has a hidden hot spot, and the user does not know that activating the hidden “hot spot” will display promotional content. Ex. 1002, 122 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Moreover, even if we did consider only the specific references addressed in the Preliminary Response, we would not reach a different outcome. Patent Owner focuses on a high-level comparison of the references. See Prelim. Resp. 13–19. Such high-levels of similarity are to be expected as all of the references involve advertising in computer game programs. But such high-level similarity is not sufficient. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01445, Paper 15 at 16 (PTAB March 2, 2022) (Institution Decision) (“The issue is not just whether the same elements can be found in each of the references, but whether the elements function the same way. That is, even though Leong and Bates have the same elements, that does not mean that the elements interact with each other the same way or perform the same functions as recited in the claims.”); see also Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 15 (holding that prior art is substantially the same if “Petitioner relies on [the new art] in substantially the same manner as the Examiner cited [the previous art] during prosecution such that [the new art] discloses substantially the same information as [the previous art] in relevant part.”); Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Alexander Soto, IPR2023-00680, Paper 18 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 28, 2024) (Vidal) (determining the Board erred when “rather than identify material, substantive overlap between the arguments presented in the Petitions and those previously presented to the Office, the Board’s analysis relied on its discussion of high-level similarities but lacked detailed reasoning”); Wolfspeed, Inc. v . The Trustees of Purdue University, IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2023) (Vidal) (vacating the Board’s decision when the “analysis of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework did not consider sufficiently the material differences between” the art the Office previously considered and the art the Petition cited). Nor were any of Petitioner’s Reply arguments improper. We expressly authorized Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments that the prior art relied on in the Petition was substantially the same as prior art that was considered. Ex. 3005 (Email from the Board to the parties) (“Petitioner is authorized to file a preliminary reply brief addressing 1) Patent Owner’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. 325(d). . . .”). Moreover, given the facts of this proceeding, it is not reasonable to require Petitioner to anticipate “substantially the same prior art” arguments and address them in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument is a proper reply argument. 3. Conclusion Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,688,089 - 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 - 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 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00209 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that PLR would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 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) (2018). “When instituting inter partes 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“focuses on a high-level comparison of the references. See Prelim. Resp. 14– 19. Such high-levels of similarity are to be expected as all of the references involve advertising in computer game programs. But such high-level similarity is not sufficient. Instead, Patent Owner must demonstrate that the references relied on in the Petition are substantially the same in all material respects to the prior art the Examiner actually relied on. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01445, Paper 15 at 16 (PTAB March 2, 2022) (Institution Decision) (“The issue is not just whether the same elements can be found in each of the references, but whether the elements function the same way. That is, even though Leong and Bates have the same elements, that does not mean that the elements interact with each other the same way or perform the same functions as recited in the claims.”); see also Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 15 (holding that prior art is substantially the same if “Petitioner relies on [the new art] in substantially the same manner as the Examiner cited [the previous art] during prosecution such that [the new art] discloses substantially the same information as [the previous art] in relevant part.”).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s statutory interpretation. Ho is a printed publication, having been published in January 2008, as Patent Owner acknowledges. See Ex. 1004, code (43) (publication date of January 17, 2008); see also Prelim. Resp. 45 (acknowledging publication date). On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that Ho is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), having been filed “by another . . . in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent.”11 See Pet. 7 (“For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner uses a June 26, 2007 priority date” for the ’662 patent); see also Ex. 1004, code (22) (filing date of July 12, 2006). Thus, Petitioner asserts a permissible ground of unpatentability” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“claim 115 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine the relevant teachings of Ho and Aoki. See Pet. 17–26, 30. With the exception of “hot spot” and “hot spot information,” which we discussed above in Section II.G.3(a), at the present time Patent Owner does not dispute that Ho teaches those limitations. See Prelim. Resp. 26–35. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information regarding the limitations identified above, including the Zagal Declaration, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that Ho teaches limitations 1(pre), 1(a), (1)(b)(1), 1(d), and 1(e) and that a person having” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,662 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security LtdInstitution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00220 · APJ Richard M Lebovitz · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims, leaving no claims eligible for inter partes review.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent,” and “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” A statutory disclaimer is “considered as part of the original patent” as of the date on which it is “recorded” in the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). “A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.” Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996). See also Raytheon Technologies Corporation v. General Electric Company, 993 F.3d 1374, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Disclaimed claims are treated as if they never existed.”)” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,431,735 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01267 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Wager and TS25.321.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“A Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)11 provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9. LG has submitted such a stipulation. Prelim. Reply 1; Ex. 1300. Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Later, when considering what would ultimately become claim 1 of the ’809 patent, the Examiner did not explicitly address whether the ’985 provisional application supported the applicant’s newly introduced reference to two distinct buffers (i.e., a E-DCH buffer and a HARQ buffer). See Ex. 1002, 152–59, 365–83; see also Pet. 15 (“While Wager was discussed during the ’104’s prosecution . . . , it was not substantively addressed for the ’809; . . . the Claims recite, e.g., ‘HARQ buffer’ elements that are not in the ’104’s claims.” (bolding omitted)). For reasons we discuss more fully below, see infra Section IV.C, we determine that the Examiner erred by failing to revisit, in light of the added reference to a HARQ buffer, whether the ’985 provisional application supported the claims that issued in the ’809 patent. This error was material to the patentability of the challenged claims because the applicant’s arguments responding to the Examiner’s Wager rejections depend on Wager not being prior art. See Ex. 1027, 387–88, 560–62, 754; see also Pet. 15–16 (“The Examiner . . . erred by not rejecting the ’809 Claims over Wager.”). Because we determine, under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, that the Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims, we need not address the first part of the Advanced Bionic framework. Thus, we decline to deny institution discretionarily under § 325(d).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“LG argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical and computer engineering, computer science, or the equivalent thereof, and . . . two years of experience with networking and wireless communications systems,” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–54). Pantech does not presently contest this. See Prelim. Resp. LG’s proposed articulation is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’809 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:25–38. Thus, we adopt the above articulation of the level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms, but the parties agree that the claim preambles of independent claims 1 and 6 are limiting. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–57); Prelim. Resp. 17. We agree that, for our decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. 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))). We discuss the claim terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,313,809
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.