• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.

  In the decision

  …25–36. We address these arguments in turn. a. Hindsight Bias Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposed combination ignores the conventional teachings in the art that the charge cut-off voltage could not safely exceed 4.2 V. PO Resp. 27. And, although Yamaki expressly discloses a charge…

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. 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))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  In the decision

  …Uemura. Id. at 31–34. In this combination, however, Petitioner does not propose modifying the charge cut-off voltage of Uemura in view of Guyomard’s teachings. Id. As such, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 11–18 would have been obvious over the combined…

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  In the decision

  …Uemura. Id. at 31–34. In this combination, however, Petitioner does not propose modifying the charge cut-off voltage of Uemura in view of Guyomard’s teachings. Id. As such, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 11–18 would have been obvious over the combined…

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00023 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4 are unpatentable over the stated § 103 combinations; Petitioner did not show claim 2 unpatentable because it did not explain how the LED array’s forward voltage is received by the driver.

  In the decision

  …Ex. 1009, 1:23–40, 3:1–3, Figs. 2, 5A). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by the express teaching in Kuo to add such a particularly reflective coating to the top of the circuit board in Deese.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 56). Petitioner…

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of experience in the field of design and/or development of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and circuits in the context of lighting control systems.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Petitioner further contends that “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id. at 12. Patent Owner proposes the same level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 6. We apply the parties’ undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the level of skill reflected in the ’149 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Dr. Lebby’s testimony over Dr. Ducharme for the following reasons. First, in Deese, power cable 28 is inserted into an opening in rubber housing 21. Ex. 1008, Fig. 2A. [R]ubber housing 21 forms a water-tight seal around the power cable 28.” Id. at 4:63–65. Dr. Ducharme does not explain why Hochstein’s protruding heat sink shell could not similarly be inserted through rubber housing 21 with a water-tight seal. Further, Dr. Lebby relies on the similarity between the structures of Deese and Hochstein. Hochstein uses gasket 45 and weather seal 48 to seal housing 10 with electrical lead 49 and heat sink shell 38 extending therethrough. Ex. 1010, 5: 39–40, 5:63:65, Fig. 8.” slip op. at 47

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther

    “Our analysis starts with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “a driver, wherein the driver includes at least one transistor and at least one capacitor” and “the driver is configured to receive an AC voltage from a mains power source and provide a voltage and current to the at least one LED circuit.” Ex. 1001, 23:16–17, 26:22–24. Dr. Ducharme testifies that power is determined by multiplying voltage and current. Ex. 2008 ¶ 63. The language of claim 1, thus, supports Patent Owner’s construction which is also consistent with the dictionary definition offered by Petitioner which also defines “driver” as [a] program, circuit or device used to power or control other programs, circuits or devices.” Ex. 1007, 4 (emphasis added). The Specification provides “the driver providing an AC voltage and current to one or more LED circuits.” Ex. 1001, 3:65–67. Thus, the Specification also provides support for Patent Owner’s construction. For the foregoing reasons, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “driver” because it is consistent with the language of claim 1 and the description of driver in the Specification. We note that the adjective “LED” prior to circuits or devices in Patent Owner’s construction is not necessary because that it essentially repeats limitation 1.e.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We begin with the claim language itself which is “the package is a heat sinking reflective material.” Ex. 1001, 23:18–19 (emphasis added). In its analysis, Patent Owner parses “heat sinking reflective material” out of context by omitting the italicized language “the package is” preceding “heat sinking reflective material.” PO Resp. 29. The deposition testimony of Dr. Lebby and Dr. Ducharme’s declaration testimony cited by Patent Owner are also out of context. The Specification of the ’149 patent defines “package” as an integrated unit that “in certain applications may preferably include a heat sink, a reflective material, a lens for directing light, phosphor nano-crystals or light changing or enhancing substances.” Ex. 1001, 5:30–33. Because heat sink and reflective material are listed separately in the Specification, this disclosure suggests that, at least in certain embodiments, a package with a heat sink separate from a reflective material would fall within the scope of limitation 1.c. This is further confirmed by comparing the packages illustrated in Figures 25 and 26 of the ’149 patent which are reproduced above. Figure 25 is described as illustrating “heat sinking material 198 . . . integrated into the package 30.” Id. at 17:34–35. Figure 26 is described as illustrating reflector 202 “integrated into the package 30 for optimized light dispersion.” Id. at 17:47–49. As can be seen from a visual comparison of Figures 25 and 26, reflector 202 is separate from heat sinking material 198. Given the disclosure in the ’149 patent of a package with a heat sink” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,149 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,149
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01576 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 13–18 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations fail to teach or suggest multiple LED packages connected in series.

  In the decision

  …attached, and not only indirectly attached, to the substrate. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 62).9 Patent Owner also points to the specification’s teaching that “coating 2488 [is] designed into or on the flexible printed circuit board in an area at least near the [LEDs] for providing more…

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–42). Patent Owner argues that its definition is superior because Petitioner’s “and/or” qualifier “might be read as considering a person who has ‘related circuit design’ experience but no experience with ‘LED devices’ to be a POSITA.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner further views Petitioner’s “or a related field” phrasing as potentially including a person who has no experience with LED devices. Id. We agree with Patent Owner on both points. We agree with Patent Owner that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’979 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill but note that had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill, we would not have reached a different outcome here.” slip op. at 6

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

    “specification support its construction of “formed or mounted to” as encompassing indirect attachment to the substrate. Neither the plain claim language nor the specification requires the phosphor coating to be directly attached to the substrate. Limitation 1(c) recites, wherein the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating to produce a change in a color or a quality of light emitted from the LED chips, wherein the LED chips, the power connection leads, and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to a flexible substrate that is sufficiently flexible to be formed into a cylindrical shape[.] Ex. 1001, 22:7–12 (emphasis added). The claim is inartfully written, as it requires the LEDs to comprise a phosphor coating but then separately recites that the LED chips and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to the substrate. But Petitioner correctly explains that the plain meaning requires that “the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating” and that “the [same] phosphor coating” (included in the LED chips) is “formed or mounted to a flexible substrate.” Reply 2. In other words, the use of the term “the” before “phosphor coating” indicates reliance on the antecedent basis of “LED chips comprise a phosphor coating,” and thus the same coating of the LED chips is formed or mounted to the substrate. Logically, by including a phosphor coating with the LED chips, which are formed or mounted to the substrate, the coating of these chips is also indirectly formed or mounted to the substrate. Conversely, it would be illogical to conclude that the claim recites two phosphor coatings, one attached to the LED chips and another attached directly to the substrate, because the structure of the claim refers to a single phosphor coating of the LED chips. Even Patent Owner concedes that the claim encompasses the phosphor coating indirectly being mounted or attached to the substrate (in addition to being directly attached). PO Resp. 11 (“The ordinary English reading of the claim language does not encompass the phosphor coating only being indirectly attached to the substrate, instead, the language indicates that the coating is directly applied to the substrate.” (emphasis changed)), 13 (“the phosphor coating . . . is not merely attached to the substrate indirectly”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “After considering Patent Owner’s arguments, which we address below, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Wojnarowski and Martin discloses this limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner. Briefly, we summarize our findings, and then we address the parties’ arguments in more detail. First, we agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Wojnarowski’s AC input voltage would have been converted to DC voltage in light of the bridge rectifier and capacitor disclosed by Wojnarowski. Pet. 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119– 20 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 7:59–62, Fig. 24); PO Resp. 35–36 (acknowledging Wojnarowski discloses converting an AC input to a DC voltage). Second, we further agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that excessive current due to too few LEDs would have harmed Wojnarowski’s LEDs, and too small a current due to too many LEDs would be insufficient to power Wojnarowski’s LEDs. Pet. 26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134; PO Resp. 48 (discussing, but not disputing, these assertions).13 Third, we agree that a POSITA would have recognized in view of Martin’s teachings and the knowledge of a skilled artisan that when configuring Wojnarowski’s device, the total forward voltage drop of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the DC voltage output 13 Petitioner explains the relationship between voltage and current for the LEDs as follows: “the total voltage drop of the circuit would dictate the current drawn by the LED circuitry, which would have been known to be inversely proportional to the voltage.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). of Wojnarowski’s circuit. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 132–38; Ex. 1008, Abstract (LED voltage “must be matched to the input source voltage”), ¶ 60 (“For AC or any other regularly varying input voltage, there is an additional requirement to direct drive voltage matching”)). For example, Martin teaches that “[t]he number of LEDs in the monolithic array may be selected to achieve a particular voltage drop across each device.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 22. Martin further explains, “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series,” and “[t]he number of LEDs is chosen such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED during the peak in the alternating current cycle is low enough so as not to damage the LEDs.” Id. The forward voltage drop across Martin’s 38 LEDs is about 171 V, which matches Martin’s AC input voltage peak of about 169.71 V. See id. (“At 120 RMS volts, the peak voltage will be about 180V [correction: 169.71 V],” and if the LEDs “can tolerate a maximum forward voltage of 4.5V, at least 38 LEDs connected in series are required.” (38 LEDs x 4.5 V = 171 V)); PO Resp. 41–42 (“While Martin references ‘about 180V,’ both parties agree that the correct value of the peak voltage Vp is 169.71 V.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 127)). Although Martin’s LED forward voltage drop (171 V) differs slightly from the peak input voltage (169.71 V), Patent Owner conceded at the hearing that the claimed “matches” does not require an exact equivalence. Tr. 38:9–11 (“Patent Owner agrees . . . that matching has a meaning that goes beyond exact equivalence.”).14” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “35 U.S.C. § 311(b). PO Resp. 22–25. This statute provides that “[a] petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” § 311(b) (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends that Martin is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) because it is not a patent or printed publication and is only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that documents are “printed publications” as of the date they become available to the public, and Martin became public on its publication date of October 21, 2004, after the February 25, 2004 priority date of the ’979 patent. Id. at 23. Patent Owner raises a similar argument for the Soules-II reference in Ground 6. Id. at 25– 26. Petitioner responds that the AIA framework permits the use of § 102(e) prior art in IPR proceedings, unlike formerly available covered business method review (CBM) proceedings, which restricted challenges to § 102(a) prior art. Reply 29. We agree. The statute governing the formerlyavailable CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) more broadly permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The broader language in § 311(b) implies that unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to challenges solely under § 102(a) prior art. The parties cite to no Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit has applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in appeals from IPR proceedings. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication was available as prior art in an IPR). The Board has also long permitted challenges based on patent application publications under § 102(e). See, e.g., Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 14 at 27 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) (instituting trial over § 102(e) ground based on a patent application publication). We therefore find Patent Owner’s § 311(b) argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,652,979 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,652,979
• Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aegis Therapeutics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01324 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 7–17 are unpatentable under §102 or §103; claims 3–6 and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable.

  In the decision

  …or mucosal delivery systems. Dr. Dyar holds a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Science and has over 30 years of experience working, consulting, and teaching in the field of pharmaceutical sciences, including with respect to ophthalmic ointments and sublingual tablets, which are mucosal delivery…

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “in Table 1 and the formulations of Potta claim 21 (i.e., ‘from about 0.1% w/w to about 15% w/w epinephrine or a salt thereof’), because such formulations would elicit the desired biological or medicinal response.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 272. Dr. Weinstein provides an essentially identical opinion. Ex. 1003 ¶ 286. Neither declarant supports their opinion with any explanation as to why the Potta formulations would provide the claimed plasma epinephrine concentration or elicit a biological or medicinal response. Accordingly, we do not credit these opinions, and determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that Potta inherently anticipates claim 3. See n re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”).” slip op. at 29

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof. We agree with Patent Owner that “[n]o bright line rule prohibits the consideration of post-priority date evidence,” and that such evidence is permissible in certain contexts. Opp. 2–3. On this record we do not find that there is sufficient cause to exclude the challenged exhibits, because any consideration by the Board of these exhibits has taken into account their alleged post-priority date status. Thus, we do not find that maintaining the exhibits in this proceeding results in any unfair prejudice to Petitioner, or that the exhibits have confused the issues before us. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude.” slip op. at 73

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “For the above reasons, on the full trial record we determine that” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,682,414 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,682,414
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02139 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  In the decision

  …an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d…

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis”) timely submitted a Petition presenting substantially the same challenges as set forth in Pfizer’s Petition along with a request for joinder to IPR2017-01488. IPR2017- 02139. Paper 1. We granted Bioepis’s Petition and associated request for joinder to this case. IPR2017-02139, Paper 11, 6–7.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner. 11 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest: Tabulation and Analysis of Amino Acid and Nucleic Acid Sequences of Precursors, V- Regions, C-Regions, J-Chain, T-Cell Receptor for Antigen, T-Cell Surface Antigens β2-Microglobulin, Major Histocompatibility Antigens, Thy-1 Complement, C-Reactive Protein, Thymopoietin, Post-Gamma Globulin, and α2-Macroblobulin, 41–175 (4th Ed. 1987). Ex. 1052. See PO Resp. 47. Moreover, in a parallel proceeding involving the same patent, Patent Owner did not dispute that the reference to “all sequences” in the patent, “refer[s] to all known sequences and there’s no dispute . . . that was really synonymous with Kabat 1987.” See IPR2017-01374 Paper 82, Tr. 15:4–16:4; see Ex. 1202 ¶ 157; Ex. 2105 ¶¶ 24–25; Ex. 2107 ¶¶ 18–19; Ex. 1198, 56:20–61:24; Ex. 1199, 27:14–28:13, 29:25–36:2, 57:1–58:6, 115:7–17, 165:17–169:9. Indeed, in a similar parallel proceeding, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term “all human immunoglobulins” refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” IPR2017-01373, Paper 83, 47:21–48:5. Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ proposed construction, with a clarifying modification, specifically, “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure, as set forth in Kabat 1987.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient.” In our institution decision, we determined that this claim language “refer[s] to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” Dec. 10–12. Neither party disputes this interpretation. See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 5–6. Consistent with claim 63’s express comparison between the immunogenicity of the claimed humanized antibody and that of its non-human parent, the Specification states that one object of the invention is to “to provide methods for the preparation of antibodies which are less antigenic in humans than non-human antibodies but have desired antigen binding and other characteristics and activities.” Ex. 1001, 4:24–28. The Specification similarly states that embodiments within the scope of the claims have “low immunogenicity,” or are designed to “minimize the potential immunogenicity of the resulting humanized antibody in the clinic.” Id. at 52:54–58, 61:56–61. Moreover, with reference to claim 63 in particular, Patent Owner points to the ’272 application as “explain[ing] that the purpose of humanizing antibodies using its consensus sequence approach is to reduce immunogenicity versus the non-human parent antibody. (Id., 6:24–30, 84:24–30.).” Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2032 (File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/715,272 (“the ’272 application”)); see also id. at 38 (indicating that the limitation is satisfied where “[o]nly 1 out of 885 patients experienced an immunogenic response . . . which was a substantial improvement over the murine 4D5 antibody”). In light of the above, we do not alter our prior determination that “[a] humanized antibody which lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient,” refers to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-01488 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  In the decision

  …an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d…

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner.” slip op. at 13

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

    “humanized” (claims 1, 30, 62–64, 66, 79, 80); “and further comprising a Framework Region (FR) amino acid substitution at a site selected from the group consisting of” (claims 1, 30, 62, 63, 66, 79, and 80); “numbering system set forth in Kabat” (claims 1, 30, 62, 63, 66, 79, and 80); and “up to 3-fold more” (claim 65). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed constructions, but asserts that “[n]o construction of those terms is necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 19; PO Resp. 19. On the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that the terms identified by Petitioners need not be construed to resolve the issues presently before us. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (instructing that claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). slip op. at 15

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

    “substitutions, most being unrepresented in any ’272 embodiment.” Pet. Reply 8. We do not find Petitioners’ argument persuasive in light of Patent Owner’s evidence showing that the ’272 application discloses, inter alia, each of the framework substitutions recited in claims 12, 42, 60, 65, 71, 73– 74, and 79 (collectively, 66L, 71H, 73H, 78H, 93H), along with “a generalized scheme for humanizing any non-human antibody.” See PO Resp. 43–44 (citing Ex. 2032, 87–90, 93; Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 91–95).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Waveform Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01051 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 were held unpatentable as obvious over Hagiwara; claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted in part.

  In the decision

  …dielectric material and an enzyme layer surrounding the nubs. Id. at 2:6–8, 2:22–29. For these claim elements, Petitioner directs us to Hagiwara’s teachings regarding dip coating membrane layers over an electrochemically active surface and the resulting structure. Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1005,…

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “j. Conclusion Regarding Obviousness Based on Hagiwara (Proposed Substitute Claims) We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. We conclude that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 21, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. 2. Remaining Grounds of Unpatentability Asserted by Petitioner (Proposed Substitute Claims) In view of our determination that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara, we do not reach Petitioner’s remaining grounds of unpatentability as to these claims. Regarding proposed substitute claims 24 and 25, Petitioner’s contentions regarding the Handbook, Wilson, and Say do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s contentions regarding Hagiwara, as discussed above. Accordingly, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that proposed substitute claims 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious based on Hagiwara in view of the Handbook, Wilson, or Say. H.” slip op. at 71

  • ExcludeOther

    “As discussed above, we do not reach the Wilson-Based Grounds with respect to claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 of the ’574 patent. As for claims 2, 3, 13, and 14, we determine that Petitioner has not shown unpatentability based on the Wilson-Based Grounds, even if Exhibit 1037 and the corresponding portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37) are not excluded, because Petitioner does not offer Exhibit 1037 to cure the deficiency we noted in Wilson. See Section II.F, supra. For this reason, we dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion.” slip op. at 72

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “sensor would not have been a motivation to combine Hagiwara’s embodiments” because Hagiwara’s catheter prevents damage to the sensor during insertion and because a sensor with a side sensor window creates a greater risk of damage and vascular injury and reduces exposure to blood, as compared with a sensor with an end sensor window. PO Resp. 20–25. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a motivation to combine, notwithstanding the conflicting expert testimony regarding the disadvantages of a side sensor window versus an end sensor window. Neither of the expert opinions on this topic is supported by objective facts or data. Ex. 1006 ¶ 155;13 Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 54–57, 87–95; Ex. 2009, 92:8–97:12. For this reason, we give little or no weight to either side’s expert testimony 13 Dr. Vachon cites “WO 01/13102, Vadgama” (Ex. 1006 ¶ 155), however, this reference was not submitted as an exhibit in this proceeding. on this topic. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness). As discussed above, however, there is no disagreement that a side sensor window was a known alternative to an end sensor window. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 73, 155; Tr. 43:22–44:3. That undisputed fact, together with Petitioner’s other evidence, is sufficient to establish a motivation to combine.” slip op. at 42

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art For purposes of our Institution Decision, we accepted the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) provided by Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Vachon. Dec. 11 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 28). That definition is: a person having a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field and at least three years of experience relating to biosensor research and development, or a master’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field, and at least one year of experience relating to biosensor research and development. Id. Patent (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidance_on_motions_ to_amend_11_2017.pdf); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Iancu, Order on Petition for Panel Rehearing, No. 2015-1928 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2018). Owner’s declarant accepts and applies this definition of a POSITA for purposes of his opinions. Ex. 2008 ¶ 30. Neither party’s declarant indicates that any proffered opinion would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, consistent with our Institution Decision, we adopt Dr. Vachon’s definition of a POSITA. Ex. 1006 ¶ 28. We also rely on the cited prior art references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,574 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,574
• Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A De C.V. v. Honeywell International, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01309 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10–13, 16, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7–9, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable.

  In the decision

  …KSR expanded the sources of information for a properly flexible obviousness inquiry to include market forces; design incentives; the “interrelated teachings of multiple patents”; “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent”; and the…

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for all, or a portion of, the term “Formula I, XCF3(I), where X is a C2 unsaturated, substituted, alkyl radical.” Pet. 17–19 (proposing a construction for the term “C2 unsaturated, substituted, alkyl radical”); PO Resp. 12–15. Neither party contends, however, that express construction of this claim term, or any other term in the ’808 patent, would impact any of Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s arguments in this proceeding. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “art. Patent Owner, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Bivens, asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had either: “(1) a bachelor of science degree in a specialty area (such as chemical engineering or chemistry) and five years of work experience in developing/testing refrigerants, blowing agents, and propellants, or (2) a Ph.D. or masters of science degree and 2-3 years of work experience.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2034 ¶¶ 21–24). Patent Owner’s identification of a person of ordinary skill in the art is uncontroverted and is consistent with the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s identification for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Accordingly, we are persuaded that: (1) Petitioner has identified where every limitation of claim 1 is disclosed or suggested in the combination of Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler; (2) Petitioner has set forth reasoned explanations supported by factual underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest filing date of the ’808 patent, would have sought to combine Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler to achieve the invention set forth in claim 1 of the ’808 patent; and (3) Petitioner has set forth reasoned arguments, supported by record evidence, to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler to achieve the composition of claim 1.” slip op. at 17

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

    “patent met a long-felt but unresolved need or were commercially successful, we have been directed to no persuasive evidence to demonstrate these propositions. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18 (noting that “long felt but unsolved needs” and commercial success may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness). Indeed, we have been directed to no persuasive evidence that a mixture of CO2 and a fluoroalkene of claim 1 has ever been used commercially, or that such a mixture was considered by those of ordinary skill in the art to have met a long felt but previously unresolved need.9, 10 See Tr. 51:24–52:7; Pet. Reply 9 (asserting that Patent Owner “has provided no evidence, post- or pre- issuance of the ’808 patent, of the commercial advantages or uses of the claimed compositions”). With respect to Petitioner’s prior patent applications, although Patent Owner initially characterizes these applications as relating to CO2 and partially fluorinated hydrocarbons, Patent Owner later notes that these patents are directed to blends of HFO-1234yf, CO2, and R-134a. PO Resp. 44; Ex. 2024, 12 (arguing in support of patentability that “[t]he specific 9 To be relevant, Patent Owner must show that the asserted secondary considerations are attributable to “the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” Asyst Techs. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Inagaki discloses using compounds within the scope of claim 1 of the ’808 patent as refrigerants. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence that the addition of CO2 to the compounds of Inagaki, or the particular ranges recited in claim 1, resulted in a product that met a long felt but unresolved need or resulted in a commercially successful product beyond what was provided in Inagaki. Thus, we are also not persuaded that there is any nexus between the asserted secondary considerations and the features of claim 1 that are not disclosed in Inagaki. 10 As Patent Owner has not demonstrated any commercial use of the claim 1 compounds for any purpose, or provided evidence that those of skill in the art considered the claimed compounds to have met an unresolved need in the art, this analysis applies equally to the dependent claims of the ’808 patent, which each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. combination of trans-R1234ze and R134a and CO2 simply is not suggested in Singh, let alone in the amounts defined in claim 1”). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why Petitioner’s arguments directed to the patentability of a blend of three compounds, utilized in specific proportions, are necessarily applicable to the combination of Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler proposed by Petitioner, or why these arguments are otherwise strong evidence of the nonobviousness of claim 1 of the ’808 patent. Based on the foregoing, and upon review of Patent Owner’s arguments as a whole, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s proffered objective evidence of nonobviousness is strong or tends to refute Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect to the obviousness of claim 1 of the ’808 patent.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,623,808 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,623,808

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.