- Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 12, 2026 · IPR2025-00070 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–7, and 9–21 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2 and 8 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted art did not meet their construed limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL A. Petitioner explains the applicable level of skill in the art as follows: As of June 24, 2010, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience and who would have had a working knowledge of software security analysis, and dynamic malware analysis. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 8 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 15–16. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’872 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We begin with the claim language in view of the Specification, which weighs heavily against Patent Owner’s position that we should rewrite “computer system” as narrowly referring to a “computing device.” PO Resp. 24. As Petitioner notes, the ’872 patent’s Specification uses “computer system” to refer to a wide range of equipment, from a component of a computing device, to a whole computing device, to a collection of computing devices. Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:5–8, 11:15–18, 16:50–55). In one example, the Specification refers to “one or more other computer systems (e.g., protected network devices 136).” Ex. 1001, 18:52–53. Thus, the Specification lists “protected network devices 136” as only an example of “other computer systems,” demonstrating that “computer systems” refers to things other than protected network devices. Although Patent Owner may be correct that this passage more than a single computing device,” we find that other disclosures in the ’872 patent do. Specifically, the Specification uses the language “distributed computer system” when referring to numerous components, including “protected network devices” and an “IDS/IPS system.” Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Reply 10. In addition to showing that a “computer system” is not limited to a single computing device, this conveys that a “computer system” according to the ’872 patent can include an IDS/IPS.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the complete record, we find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to be more persuasive. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s argument and evidence that capturing detailed information like Goel’s activity sources, activity targets, and association was recognized as enhancing threat analysis. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79); see PO Resp. 55–59; Sur-Reply 15–17. Additionally, contrary to Patent Owner’s suggestion, we find that the Petition does not propose incorporating Goel’s kernel hooks into Capalik’s system. See Pet. 41–46. Patent Owner contends that the Petition’s reference to modifying Capalik by “adding lines of code” suggests implementing the code disclosed in Goel include kernel hooks. Id. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s assertion otherwise, this is an unpersuasive bodily incorporation argument, as the Petition never says an ordinarily skilled artisan would have used the exact lines of code from Goel in Capalik. Rather, the Petition says that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had sufficient skill to implement straightforward code modifications to identify activity sources, targets, and associations: a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that modifying Capalik’s system (e.g., Linux-based) to additionally monitor, identify, and store each individual activity of an attack including “activity sources, activity targets, and associations” would have required straightforward modifications to programs/code instructions, which would have been well-within the skillset of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]. Pet. 46. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not explain how an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Capalik without using kernel hooks. Sur-Reply 17. But Patent Owner does not cite any evidence to counter Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had the skill to apply Goel’s general teaching of identifying sources, targets, and associations to Capalik’s system. Ex. 1003 ¶ 182. On the whole, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position that the combination would have required substantially increased detection risk. Moreover, even if the combination would have somewhat increased detection risk, Petitioner persuades us that an ordinarily skilled artisan still would have had reason to combine the references teachings. Patent Owner’s allegations of increased detection risk do not negate the undisputed evidence that the combination would have provided the advantage of improved threat analysis. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–182). Ultimately, Patent Owner’s that activity logging be undetectable.” PO Resp. 56 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 6). This exaggerates Capalik’s disclosure. Although the cited paragraph suggests that certain systems unfortunately may be detectable by some users, it does not convey that it is a requirement for the system to be categorically undetectable. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 6.8 In sum, Petitioner persuades us by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to modify Capalik “to identify and store unauthorized activities including the activity source, activity target, and association of each activity.” Pet. 41–46; PO Resp. 55–59; Reply 20–22; Sur-Reply 15–17.” slip op. at 47
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“arguments and evidence, we determine that Patent Owner fails to sufficiently show a nexus between any of its objective indicia evidence and the claimed invention. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists”). A showing of sufficient nexus is required to establish that the evidence relied upon traces its basis to a novel element in the claim, not to something in the prior art. Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Objective evidence that results from something that is not “both claimed and novel in the claim” lacks a nexus to the merits of the invention. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis omitted). Thus, establishing nexus involves a showing that novel elements in the claim, not prior-art elements, account for the objective evidence of nonobviousness. Id. As discussed above, Petitioner shows that Capalik teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner persuades us that none of claim 1’s elements individually nor any combination thereof is novel over Capalik’s disclosure. Accordingly, claim 1 is not novel over Capalik, which disproves Patent Owner’s assertion of nexus. PO Resp. 73–76. Moreover, even if claim 1 were novel, Patent Owner otherwise fails to show nexus for its commercial success, praise, or copying assertions. Patent Owner’s evidence does not show that Petitioner’s commercial product embodies claim 1. For example, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “failed to analyze any meaningful detail regarding” how the Falcon Platform allegedly meets limitation 1(d). Reply 28–29. In particular, Patent Owner has not sufficiently addressed limitation 1(d) with the following argument: “1[D] The Falcon Platform transmitted to other computer systems” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 9,954,872 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,954,872 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, sensor system design and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 26. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’178 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring-type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,868,178 - Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00083 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Socwell, Magid, and Sclater; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Prior to institution, Patent Owner argued that we should dismiss the Petition because it identifies the Petitioner as the California Corporation and not the Delaware Corporation. Paper 6, 23–24 (Preliminary Response); Paper 9, 1 (Preliminary Sur-Reply); Paper 12 (Conference Call Transcript); Paper 18 (Request for Director Review). In our Decision on Institution, we found Patent Owner’s argument, as applied to the facts of this proceeding, to be unpersuasive and corrected the caption to correctly reference Petitioner as the California Corporation, essentially replacing the “Inc.” with “LLC” in Petitioner’s name. Paper 13, 14–17; see also Paper 21 (Decision Denying Director Review).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenOther
“We find Dr. Giachetti’s testimony, alone, insufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSA, given Tollkien and Sclater, would have been motivated to look to one-way sprag-type clutches to solve the problem of unexpected forward motion of the running belt of a treadmill. Without a reference, like Magid, teaching that it was known to use a one-way clutch mechanism on a treadmill to prevent unexpected forward motion, we are persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner’s combination is impermissibly based in hindsight. See PO Resp. 42–47. After considering Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable over Tollkien and Sclater.” slip op. at 42
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Declaration of Robert Giachetti, Ph.D. P.E) under FRE 401–402. Mot. 4 (citing FRE 401–402 in the heading). Patent Owner’s Motion, however, includes no substantive arguments directed to whether Giachetti Declaration is relevant admissible evidence or irrelevant inadmissible evidence. Mot. 4– 7. In its Reply, Patent Owner states: “While the Motion to Exclude does not expressly detail Exhibit 1036’s lack of relevance under FRE 401–402, the irrelevance is plain. Petitioner’s provision of new arguments in Reply, which is not allowed, renders such arguments irrelevant.” PO Reply to Mot., 1, n.1. Patent Owners argument is unpersuasive because it is a mere assertion without adequate explanation. The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). Patent Owner’s mere assertion does not meet Patent Owner’s burden to show that Exhibit 1036 is irrelevant inadmissible evidence.” slip op. at 52
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“8 Patent Owner argues that we should not consider Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1036 and 1051 because the Reply and Exhibits relate to new arguments which should have been made in the Petition. PO Sur-Reply 4–5. We do not agree. Petitioner may rely upon Exhibits 1036 and 1051 to response to arguments raised in the Patent Owner’s Response. See PO Resp. (a ); Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronics, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1380–1382 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“we have continued to recognize that a petitioner is entitled under the APA to respond to new claim construction arguments made by a patent owner.”)” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,465,005 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,465,005 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00048 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references do not teach flanges physically contacting along a juncture.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the ’626 patent, “would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Structural Engineering or a related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in construction connector design/development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. PO Resp. 17–18. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of these cases would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and undisputed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“shaped portion configured to receive the structural component,” “a connection portion,” and “an extension portion,” and that “the extension portion spac[es] the channel-shaped portion from the [connection portion]” and “the channel-shaped portion, the extension portion and the connection portion are rigidly fixed with respect to one another.” Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (emphases added). Claim 1’s repeated use of “portion[s]” to delineate between the three main elements of the hanger, i.e., channel-shaped portion, connection portion, and extension portion, shows or at least strongly suggests substantial flexibility as to the specific location where one “portion” transitions to another “portion” in the fire wall hanger. Similarly, although claim 1 recites that the “channel-shaped portion” is “configured to receive the structural component,” claim 1 recites no limitation precluding other “portions” of the hanger from also “receiv[ing]” or otherwise contacting the structural component. Patent Owner argues that “channel-shaped portion” should be construed to mean “[the] portion of the hanger that forms a channel configured to receive the structural component.” PO Resp. 19. Petitioner and its expert, Mr. Fennell, agree with this meaning (Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–20), and so do we. Indeed, claim 1 plainly recites this as discussed above. But Patent Owner then urges us to narrow the meaning of “portion” itself such that “channel-shaped portion” requires “all portions of the hanger which directly bound the channel that receives the structural component.” PO Resp. 19 (emphases added). Patent Owner argues the Specification makes this “clear.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–31). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 19), we find no support in claim 1 to further narrow the interpretation of “portion” in “channel-shaped portion” to mean every portion of the hanger which directly bounds the channel that receives the structural component. See Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (claim 1). We, like Petitioner, similarly find no support in the Specification or limited prosecution history (see Pet. 5–6), and Patent Owner does not direct us to any, showing that the inventor acted as its own lexicographer or disavowed any claim scope to allot this narrowed interpretation to the subject limitation. See Pet. Reply 3 (“Nowhere does the ’626 patent specification describe that all portions of the hanger directly bounding channel 52 constitute the channel-shaped portion.” (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–18; Ex. 1001, 4:39–47)); PO Resp. 19.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues, inter alia, that Yamaguchi teaches a joist hanger with an extension portion defining a space between its back flange and channel-shaped portion, and Bundy teaches to size a space created by an extension portion of its joist hanger to receive two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall between its back flange plane and channel-shaped portion. Pet. 16–18 (citing 1003 ¶¶ 75–78; Ex. 1007, 5:16–18, Fig. 1; Ex. 1041 (“Perspective View”; “Usage View”)); see id. at 17–18 (discussing “advantages” of two layers of 5/8" drywall as “fire resistance in a fire separation wall”). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to receive drywall between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to provide a shielded fire resistant wooden frame wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Ex. 1007, 2:10–24); see id. ([“The skilled artisan] would have optimized the size of the spacing between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall according to the size preference described by Bundy for optimal fire protection and wall integrity.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80; Ex. 1007, 5:10–22)). Petitioner concludes: This modification to Yamaguchi would have been nothing more than applying a known technique (Bundy’s spacing a hanger seat from a wall frame by distance sufficient to accommodate two 5/8”-thick-drywall sheets for fire resistance) to a similar device (Yamaguchi’s hanger having a spacing of indeterminate length) to obtain the predictable result of a firewall hanger having a space between its channel-shaped portion and a wall frame large enough for receiving drywall therebetween, thereby “protect[ing] the structural members of a building.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:18–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yamaguchi as discussed above, “because doing so would still allow Yamaguchi’s hanger to perform its intended function of securing a joist to a wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1041, 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81). Petitioner argues, “[r]ecognizing that Yamaguchi’s and Bundy’s hangers are constructed from sheet metal,” the skilled artisan “would have understood how to modify the size of Yamaguchi’s extension portions to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall while still allowing Yamaguchi’s hanger to secure a joist’s end to a frame wall.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 1007, 4:47–51); see id. at 19–20 (discussing that although “Yamaguchi’s described setting is a sill plate,” the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to use Yamaguchi’s hanger on a wood frame wall in particular so that sheathing could be installed in the space behind the joist as taught by Bundy” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–82)). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find Petitioner’s cited evidence provides sufficient rational reasons to combine Yamaguchi and Bundy to arrive at the invention of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Analysis Patent Owner argues, “[w]hile the asserted prior art does teach flanges or sidewalls that are in opposed relation to each other, none of Adams, Cullen, or Yamaguchi teach that these flanges or sidewalls engage each other along a juncture.” PO Resp. 42–43; see PO Sur-reply 6 (Patent Owner arguing, “Adams’s, Cullen’s, and Yamaguchi’s extension flanges are spaced well apart.”). Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary depend wholly on its proposed interpretation of the term “engaging” (Pet. 58–60; Pet. Reply 30–31), which we reject, as discussed above. Although Yamaguchi (and Cullen and Adams) may teach extension flanges in opposed, face-to-face relation, Petitioner does not explain, let alone with particularity or persuasively, how Yamaguchi’s (or Cullen’s or Adams’) flanges, which would wind up located on opposing sides of a joist (where a joist is mounted in the hanger), also teach such extension flanges engaging each other along a juncture—indeed, what juncture? See PO Sur-reply 7 (“Beyond asserting that the word ‘engaging’—standing alone—does not require ‘touching contact,’ [Petitioner] still does not address how the extension flanges of Yamaguchi, Cullen, and Adams can be said to ‘engage’ each other.”). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the combination of Yamaguchi and Bundy teaches or even fairly suggests a fire wall hanger wherein “the first and second extension flanges engag[e] each other along a juncture, the juncture arranged to be positioned within the two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall,” as recited in dependent claims 38 and 91.” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00049 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach flanges physically touching along a juncture.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the ’626 patent, “would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Structural Engineering or a related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in construction connector design/development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. PO Resp. 17–18.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“artisan would have interpreted or understood the teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, as well as of the combination of those references, are unsupported attorney-arguments. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Patent Owner cites no evidence of how the skilled artisan would have understood the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, or how such an understanding would support Patent Owner’s attorney arguments. Indeed, Patent Owner did not file any expert testimony in any of the three subject cases, despite that we must resolve the legal question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, particularly the scope and content of the prior art and any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art from the vantage point of the skilled artisan. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; see Pet. Reply 2 (“As a threshold matter, the Board’s findings in its Institution Decision should be carried forward to its final written decision because Patent Owner did not submit an expert declaration in support of its arguments.”); but see PO Sur-reply 1–4 (“[T]here is no requirement that a party rely exclusively on expert testimony in Post Grant Review proceedings or that attorney argument must be disregarded.”). To the contrary, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Fennell, persuasively testifies in detail how and why the skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and suggestions of Yamaguchi and Bundy to achieve the invention of claim 1, including the features of limitation 1.3.B. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–83, 96; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 30–40. We find Mr. Fennell’s testimony credible (and uncontroverted).” slip op. at 40
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Judge Rich’s guidance from over thirty years ago: in all aspects of claim construction, “the name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker, 150 F.3d at 1369. Claims 38 and 91 recite, in relevant part, a fire wall hanger wherein “the first and second extension flanges engag[e] each other along a juncture, the juncture arranged to be positioned within the two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall.” Ex. 1001, 15:28–33, 21:41–46 (emphasis added). On its face, this limitation requires not only that the first and second extension flanges “engage” each other, but also do so “along a juncture.” This recitation of the flanges “engaging” each other along a “juncture” (i.e., a place where things join) strongly supports interpreting the subject limitation to require physical contact (i.e., touching) at least along some portion of the flanges (such as shown in Figure 2, reproduced above). To the contrary, nothing in claims 38 or 91, or their underlying independent claims, suggests that two flanges “engaging each other along a juncture” means or even includes within its scope two flanges “symmetrical to each other across a juncture,” as urged by Petitioner (Pet. 59).” slip op. at 67
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuasively argues, and we agree: There is certainly no requirement that the hanger contain a component “that prevents the back face of the drywall (or any portion thereof) being secured directly to the face of the wall framing” or that the back flange plane “define” or “bound” the space that receives drywall as alleged by Patent Owner. POR [PO Resp.], 25-26. As explained in the Petition and supported by Mr. Fennell’s testimony, Yamaguchi-Bundy’s modified hanger has an extension portion that is long enough to permit two layers of 5/8-inch-thick drywall (i.e., an extending flange having a length over 1 and 1/4 inches) to be received between the channel-shaped portion and the back flange plane. Pet., 28-30, 37; EX1003, ¶96. That is all that is required. EX1046, ¶32. Pet. Reply 12.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00047 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not teach flanges physically touching along a juncture.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of these cases would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and undisputed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“But Patent Owner then urges us to narrow the meaning of “portion” itself such that “channel-shaped portion” requires “all portions of the hanger which directly bound the channel that receives the structural component.” PO Resp. 19 (emphases added). Patent Owner argues the Specification makes this “clear.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–31). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 19), we find no support in claim 1 to further narrow the interpretation of “portion” in “channel-shaped portion” to mean every portion of the hanger which directly bounds the channel that receives the structural component. See Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (claim 1). We, like Petitioner, similarly find no support in the Specification or limited prosecution history (see Pet. 5–6), and Patent Owner does not direct us to any, showing that the inventor acted as its own lexicographer or disavowed any claim scope to allot this narrowed interpretation to the subject limitation. See Pet. Reply 3 (“Nowhere does the ’626 patent specification describe that all portions of the hanger directly bounding channel 52 constitute the channel-shaped portion.” (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–18; Ex. 1001, 4:39–47)); PO Resp. 19. Further, as argued by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 4–5), Patent Owner’s proposed construction limiting “portion” to “all portions” of the hanger that “directly bound the channel that receives the structural component” could cause the “channel-shaped portion” on the same physical hanger to change depending on which type of structural component an installer were to choose to use in construction: Patent Owner’s claim construction improperly focuses on the wall assembly intended to be used with the recited hanger. The claims, however, are directed to a hanger, not a wall assembly. When assessing what part of a hanger constitutes a “channel-shaped portion” and an “extension portion,” [the skilled artisan] would consider the physical features of the hanger itself and the natural divisions between those features. [The skilled artisan] would not assess the claim language and its application to the prior art by speculating how an installer might later install the hanger with a joist or an entire wall assembly, which may differ from installation to installation. Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶ 19). We find this defect further supports a broader interpretation of “channel-shaped portion” as discussed above. Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues, inter alia, that Yamaguchi teaches a joist hanger with an extension portion defining a space between its back flange and channel-shaped portion, and Bundy teaches to size a space created by an extension portion of its joist hanger to receive two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall between its back flange plane and channel-shaped portion. Pet. 16–18 (citing 1003 ¶¶ 75–78; Ex. 1007, 5:16–18, Fig. 1; Ex. 1041 (“Perspective View”; “Usage View”)); see id. at 17–18 (discussing “advantages” of two layers of 5/8" drywall as “fire resistance in a fire separation wall”). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to receive drywall between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to provide a shielded fire resistant wooden frame wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Ex. 1007, 2:10–24); see id. ([“The skilled artisan] would have optimized the size of the spacing between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall according to the size preference described by Bundy for optimal fire protection and wall integrity.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80; Ex. 1007, 5:10–22)). Petitioner concludes: This modification to Yamaguchi would have been nothing more than applying a known technique (Bundy’s spacing a hanger seat from a wall frame by distance sufficient to accommodate two 5/8”-thick-drywall sheets for fire resistance) to a similar device (Yamaguchi’s hanger having a spacing of indeterminate length) to obtain the predictable result of a firewall hanger having a space between its channel-shaped portion and a wall frame large enough for receiving drywall therebetween, thereby “protect[ing] the structural members of a building.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:18–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yamaguchi as discussed above, “because doing so would still allow Yamaguchi’s hanger to perform its intended function of securing a joist to a wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1041, 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81). Petitioner argues, “[r]ecognizing that Yamaguchi’s and Bundy’s hangers are constructed from sheet metal,” the skilled artisan “would have understood how to modify the size of Yamaguchi’s extension portions to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall while still allowing Yamaguchi’s hanger to secure a joist’s end to a frame wall.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 1007, 4:47–51); see id. at 19–20 (discussing that although “Yamaguchi’s described setting is a sill plate,” the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to use Yamaguchi’s hanger on a wood frame wall in particular so that sheathing could be installed in the space behind the joist as taught by Bundy” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–82)). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find” slip op. at 46
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“artisan would have interpreted or understood the teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, as well as of the combination of those references, are unsupported attorney-arguments. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Patent Owner cites no evidence of how the skilled artisan would have understood the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, or how such an understanding would support Patent Owner’s attorney arguments. Indeed, Patent Owner did not file any expert testimony in any of the three subject cases, despite that we must resolve the legal question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, particularly the scope and content of the prior art and any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art from the vantage point of the skilled artisan. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; see Pet. Reply 2 (“As a threshold matter, the Board’s findings in its Institution Decision should be carried forward to its final written decision because Patent Owner did not submit an expert declaration in support of its arguments.”); but see PO Sur-reply 1–4 (“[T]here is no requirement that a party rely exclusively on expert testimony in Post Grant Review proceedings or that attorney argument must be disregarded.”). To the contrary, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Fennell, persuasively testifies in detail how and why the skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and suggestions of Yamaguchi and Bundy to achieve the invention of claim 1, including the features of limitation 1.3.B. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–83, 96; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 30–40. We find Mr. Fennell’s testimony credible (and uncontroverted).” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00849 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 18, 20, 26, and 27 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedOther
“1. “safety device” For the ’745 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelOther
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various non-” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“5. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness a) Legal Standards Objective evidence of non-obviousness “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean, 699 F.3d at 1349. Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, objective evidence of nonobviousness (or “secondary considerations”) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 72
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“cited by Petitioner, we find that on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 18 and 20 based on Socwell, Magid, and Sclater.” slip op. at 82
Patent outcomesUS 10,799,745 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,799,745 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00843 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30–34, 37–39, 41, 45–49, 57, and 59 are unpatentable under § 103 over Chickering, Magid, and Sclater; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’884 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 13
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Dr. Blair to be unpersuasive, because we do not agree that the claimed running surface is required to be a surface with which a runner’s feet are intended to make contact when using a treadmill. Dr. Blair testifies that “[a] POSA would understand a treadmill’s ‘running surface’ to be a surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use” and that, because a runner’s feet is not intended to contact the belt at the area where the forward rollers meet the rearward rollers, that area is not part of the running surface. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–92. Dr. Blair’s testimony, however, contains no sufficient explanation to support his conclusion of what a POSA would understand by the term “running surface.” See id. ¶ 90. Further, Dr. Blair’s testimony is inconsistent with the language of claim 30. Claim 30 recites: “the running belt comprises a curved running surface.” Ex. 1001, 35:58–59. The language of claim 30 does not require the running belt’s running surface to only be portions that the runner typically or is intended to run upon. Dr. Blair’s testimony is also inconsistent with the ’884 patent which does not describe the running surface as being limited to the surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use. See generally id. The ’884 patent describes numerous examples of continuous running surfaces with a wide variety of” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 10,561,884 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,561,884 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00836 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14, and 18 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 15 and 25 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’580 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’580 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as a means-plus-function claim limitation with corresponding structure being “a operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever.” Ex. 1033, 17–22. Both parties agree that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” to encompass “a one-way bearing assembly, a cam locking system, a taper lock, a user operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever” and equivalents.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Both parties agree that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” to encompass “a one-way bearing assembly, a cam locking system, a taper lock, a user operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever” and equivalents.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that either of Chickering or Magid teaches away from the combination proposed in the Petition — modifying Chickering’s single-belt embodiment to include Magid’s unidirectional control mean 6, 6’ (Pet. 41). Patent Owner points to differences between Chickering and Magid, but we are not persuaded that those differences – number of belts, use as a therapeutic device as opposed to a recreational exercise device, use of handles – would discourage a POSA from making the proposed combination. Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 57–59. slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,039,580 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,039,580
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.