• Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13

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

    “5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31

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

    “form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33

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

    “2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,998,854
• Posco Co., Ltd. v. ArcelormittalAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00371 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–25 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Takagi, Cornette, Suehiro, GMW14400, Laurent, and Vaissiere.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have had an undergraduate degree in materials science, manufacturing engineering, mechanical engineering, or equivalent knowledge, training, or experience, with two years of experience working in metallurgy.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA for this proceeding. PO Resp. 8. Because the parties agree and because Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the ’227 patent specification and the prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “1. superficial layer The only independent claim at issue, claim 1, recites a “Superficial layer.” Ex. 1001, 15:6. Patent Owner argues that, based on plain and ordinary meaning, the term “superficial layer” refers to a “surface layer” or “top layer.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner does not dispute this construction. See Pet. Reply 21–22 (arguing that the relevant layer of the Suehiro reference is a superficial layer because it is outermost and present at the surface). Because the parties are in agreement and because that agreement is consistent with plain language, claim language, and the ’227 specification, we construe “superficial layer” as referring to a surface layer or top layer.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Extrinsic evidence (dictionaries, experts)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “defined stoichiometry” (Ex. 2037, 527) but the word may also be a “generic term for phases . . . which may have a narrow or extended compositional stability range” (id.). The first glossary meaning is consistent with Patent Owner’s position. The second, broader, glossary meaning is consistent with Petitioner’s position. Some of the extrinsic sources before us support the broad definition, and some support the narrow definition. See PO Sur-Reply 3–4 (arguing that Dr. Miles admitted that various treatises distinguish intermetallic compounds from alloys and solid solutions). Thus, neither Dr. Miles or Dr. Raabe is “wrong scientifically” in how they use the term “intermetallic” in this proceeding. Id. at 2 (noting that Dr. Miles agreed that Dr. Raabe’s construction is not wrong scientifically). As explained below, however, only one of these meanings is appropriate here. To decide which possible meaning applies to the ’227 patent, we focus on the patent claims and specification. Claim 1 indicates that the intermetallic layer has a “mean composition” (emphasis added). Ex. 1001, 15:1–10. This indicates, albeit weakly, that iron composition across the layer may vary rather than having ordered stoichiometry—consistent with Petitioner’s position. The specification also indicates that “intermetallic alloying” is a possibility—again, consistent with Petitioner’s position. Ex. 1001, 2:47–50. Meanwhile, nothing in the ’227 specification explicitly (or implicitly) suggests that “intermetallic layer” must be limited to elements atomically joined with defined stoichiometry in an ordered crystal structure. We also find that Dr. Miles’s testimony regarding the meaning of “intermetallic” is more credible than Dr. Rabbe’s testimony. Dr. Rabbe, in deposition, stated that Figure 2 of the challenged patent “does not show a layer that meets [his] construction of intermetallic.” Ex. 1078, 129:21–24. The ’227 patent, however, states that Figure 2 includes an “Al-rich Intermetallic layer.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, 3:60–64 (“FIG 2. Illustrates a coating … which does not correspond to the invention. This succession of layers (interdiffusion layer and intermetallic layer) yields inferior results in resistance spot welding.”). Also, Dr. Raabe previously referred to a layer of Takagi as having “intermetallic phase layering and structure.” Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1076 ¶ 166; Ex ¶ 1075, 17) (emphasis omitted). Thus, Dr. Raabe’s construction of “intermetallic” for this proceeding does not fully account for the ’227 patent usage of the word “intermetallic” and does not fully account for Dr. Raabe’s prior usage of the word “intermetallic.” Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction “erases the meaningful distinction” between the claimed layers. PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s construction renders the word “intermetallic” superfluous because allowing the intermetallic layer to be “merely a multi-element alloy erases the meaningful distinction among these layers.” Id. We disagree. The word intermetallic serves to require that the layer be composed of two or more metals or a metal and a metalloid. The word intermetallic also serves as a label to differentiate each of the four claimed layers. For example, in claim 1, the word “intermetallic” is used much like the words “interdiffusion” and “intermediate” to give each of the four layers (each having differently mean compositions) different labels.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Because IHS was a company that created an online database with the purpose of providing (selling) standards including General Motors standards to the public, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to look to this database and would have been able to find GMW14400. Patent Owner presents no evidence to the contrary. Because a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner, we determine Petitioner establishes GMW14400 is qualifies as prior art.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,326,227 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,326,227
• Posco Co., Ltd. v. ArcelormittalAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00370 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have had an undergraduate degree in materials science, manufacturing engineering, mechanical engineering, or equivalent knowledge, training, or experience, with two years of experience working in metallurgy.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–16). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA for this proceeding. PO Resp. 8. Because the parties agree and because Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the ’602 patent specification and the prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “1. superficial layer All independent claims at issue, claims 1, 21, and 24, recite a “superficial layer.” Ex. 1001, 15:11, 16:60, 17:21. Patent Owner argues that, based on plain and ordinary meaning, the term “superficial layer” refers to a “surface layer” or “top layer.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner does not dispute this construction. See Pet. Reply 21–22 (arguing that the relevant layer of the Suehiro reference is a superficial layer because it is outermost and present at the surface). Because the parties are in agreement and because that agreement is consistent with plain language, claim language, and the ’602 specification, we construe “superficial layer” as referring to a surface layer or top layer.” slip op. at 10

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

    “defined stoichiometry” (Ex. 2037, 527) but the word may also be a “generic term for phases . . . which may have a narrow or extended compositional stability range” (id.). The first glossary meaning is consistent with Patent Owner’s position. The second, broader, glossary meaning is consistent with Petitioner’s position. Some of the sources before us support the broad definition, and some support the narrow definition. See PO Sur-Reply 3–4 (arguing that Dr. Miles admitted that various treatises distinguish intermetallic compounds from alloys and solid solutions) Thus, neither Dr. Miles or Dr. Raabe is “wrong scientifically” in how they use the term “intermetallic” in this proceeding. Id. at 2 (noting that Dr. Miles agreed that Dr. Raabe’s construction is not wrong scientifically). As explained below, however, only one of these meanings is appropriate here. To decide which possible meaning applies to the ’602 patent, we focus on the patent claims and specification. The claims indicate that the intermetallic layer has a “mean iron composition” (emphasis added). Ex. 1001, 15:6–10. This indicates, albeit weakly, that the iron composition across the layer may vary rather than having ordered stoichiometry— consistent with Petitioner’s position. The specification also indicates that “intermetallic alloying” is a possibility—again, consistent with Petitioner’s position. Id. at 2:50–54. Meanwhile, nothing in the ’602 specification explicitly (or implicitly) suggests that “intermetallic layer” must be limited to elements atomically joined with defined stoichiometry in an ordered crystal structure. We also find that Dr. Miles’s testimony regarding the meaning of “intermetallic” is more credible than Dr. Raabe’s testimony. Dr. Raabe, in deposition, stated that Figure 2 of the challenged patent “does not show a layer that meets [his] construction of intermetallic.” Ex. 1078, 129:21–24. The ’602 patent, however, states that Figure 2 includes an “Al-rich Intermetallic layer.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, 3:57–61 (“FIG 2. Illustrates a coating . . . which does not correspond to the invention. This succession of layers (interdiffusion layer and intermetallic layer) yields inferior results in resistance spot welding.”). Also, Dr. Raabe previously referred to a layer of Takagi as having “intermetallic phase layering and structure.” Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1076, 166; Ex. 1075, 17) (emphasis omitted). Thus, Dr. Raabe’s definition of “intermetallic” does not fully account for the ’602 patent usage of the word “intermetallic” and does not fully account for Dr. Raabe’s prior usage of the word “intermetallic.” Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction “erases the meaningful distinction” between the claimed layers. PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s construction renders the word “intermetallic” superfluous because allowing the intermetallic layer to be “merely a multi-element alloy erases the meaningful distinction among these layers.” Id. We disagree. The word intermetallic serves to require that the layer be composed of two or more metals or a metal and a metalloid. The word intermetallic also serves as a label to differentiate each of the four claimed layers. For example, in claim 1, the word “intermetallic” is used much like the words “interdiffusion” and “intermediate” to give each of the four layers (each having differently defined mean iron compositions) different labels.” slip op. at 16

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

    “have had reason to combine teachings of Takagi and Cornette with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 11–20 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28– 42; Ex. 1016 ¶ 35; Ex. 1014, 9; Ex. 1025, 5:17–20; Ex. 1026, 7; Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). In particular, Petitioner argues that Takagi discloses a pre-coating thickness of 10–20 µm but does not explicitly disclose a post hot-stamping coating thickness corresponding to the pre-coating thickness. Pet. 11. Cornette teaches that the hot-stamping thickness causes coating expansion from 25 µm to about 40 µm, an increase of 60%. Id. (citations omitted). Petitioner and Dr. Miles reason that, when hot stamping Takagi’s product, the thickness would be 32 µm. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32); see also Pet. Reply 20–21. Thus, Patent Owner argues that Cornette evidences Takagi’s finally coating thickness without requiring modification of Takagi. Petitioner further argues that Takagi and Cornette teach that post hot- stamping thickness could be varied and optimized as a result effective variable. Id. at 12–13; see also Pet. Reply 17–18. Cornette teaches, for example, that “[t]he average [pre-coating] layer thickness showing the best compromise between corrosion protection and weldability is 25 µm” and links this pre-coating thickness to a final thickness of “about 40 µm at the steel surface.” Ex. 1014, 9. Petitioner also argues that it would have been obvious to fill in other details of Takagi including, for example, selecting USIBOR 1500 steel, based on the teachings of Cornette. Pet. 14. Patent Owner argues that there is no reason to combine Takagi with the teachings of Cornette. PO Resp. 26. Patent Owner makes seven related arguments. Patent Owner first argues that the Petitioner’s position is speculative and lacks basis. Id. at 26–27. We disagree. Cornette evidences a final coating thickness for Takagi, and the references also suggest that final coating thickness is result effective. Second, Patent Owner argues that there would have been no incentive to seek a motivation to seek a thicker coating post-hot stamping. Id. at 28– 35. This argument does not undermine Petitioner’s position that Takagi, by itself, would have reached a thicker coating after stamping as evidenced by Cornette. Pet. 11–12. Petitioner takes the position, with evidence, that practice of Takagi alone would reach the recited thickness. No motivation to modify Takagi is required under this position.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,961,602 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,961,602
• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00115 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 10, 11, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28–30, 32, 33, and 35 are unpatentable; claim 15 is not shown unpatentable, based on the four asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Wieselthaler’s Declaration (Exhibit 1041), portions of Mr. Crosby’s Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1042), portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Wieselthaler (Exhibit 2028), and the exhibits “upon which that testimony is based” (Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050). Mot. 1. According to Patent Owner, the Motion was made “to preserve objections previously made in the record.” Id. (citations omitted). Patent Owner did not timely move to strike any of the evidence at issue as being outside the scope of reply evidence. Patent Owner asserts that because an inter partes review must be based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications (citing 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), the testimony of Mr. Crosby and Dr. Wieselthaler concerning “various physical devices allegedly known” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is inadmissible, along with all of the exhibits (consisting of printed materials such a journal abstracts, press releases, and papers) related to those physical devices. Id. at 3–4; see also Mot. Reply 1–4 (arguing that “devices that Petitioner’s witnesses assert were in public use prior to the claimed inventions, are not prior art that can form the basis of an inter partes review”). According to Patent Owner, Dr. Wieselthaler was unable to “link two of these physical devices to the printed prior art asserted in this [inter partes review], but those attempts fell apart during his cross examination.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner further reasons that because the evidence “cannot be the basis” of an inter partes review, it “has probable,” “is irrelevant and not admissible,” “presents substantial danger of confusing the issues, causing undue delay, and wasting time in this trial,” and “are not ‘based on sufficient facts[,] the product of reliable principles and methods[, or] ‘a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.’” Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401–403, 702) (modification in original). With regard to Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Patent Owner identifies no plausible legal theory for their inadmissibility based on the contention that they discuss physical devices. See Mot. Resp. 3. We also agree with Petitioner that the exhibits are not “the basis for any ground” asserted in this proceeding, and may be properly relied upon by Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby as support for their rebuttal testimony directed to Patent Owner’s arguments disputing Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine the prior art relied upon in the instituted grounds. See id. at 3–4. In regard to the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and” slip op. at 80

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “‘electronics for power and control’”). According to Mr. Crosby, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood based on the disclosure of this setup that these speed and motor parameters were monitored by a sensor providing feedback to the controller.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 725. Mr. Crosby identifies no support for this opinion, which we give little weight to. The mere fact that Bourque’s pump used software to control speed and motor parameters does not show that Bourque used “one or more sensors” to provide feedback signals to the external control unit. Indeed, Petitioner fails to identify any evidence that Bourque used any “sensor” to monitor “speed and motor parameters.” Mr. Crosby also states that “[e]ach of the ‘ultrasonic flow probe’ and the ‘solid-state catheter-type pressure transducer’ described in [Bourque] is a ‘sensor’ as recited in Claim 33 that provides feedback signals to the external control unit (e.g., ‘electronics for power and control’ and ‘data acquisition’).” Id. ¶¶ 581, 726. Mr. Crosby’s opinion is again unsupported by the evidence, because, as explained above, there is no teaching in Bourque that either the “ultrasonic flow probe” or the “pressure transducers” used in the “in vitro characterization” studies were part of the heart assist pump device. Based on our review and consideration of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence directed to claim 11, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted combination of Bourque and Wampler teaches or suggests each of the limitations of dependent claim 11. We reach the same conclusion for the same reasons with regard to claim 33.” slip op. at 48

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

    “1. “magneto coupling” Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a second magnetic device “positioned” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,674,517 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,674,517
• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SANo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00116 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–5, 7, 10, 16–24, 26, and 28 not unpatentable under any of the four § 103 grounds because the petition failed to prove required limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that the ’077 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of skill reflected in these references and in the ’077 patent is consistent with the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, which we adopt. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We further find that our determinations in this Decision would be the same if we were to instead adopt the level of skill proposed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “axially adjacent” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of “adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 73–79 (Mr. Leschinsky addressing the claim term “axially adjacent” and explaining that a person of ordinary skill would have understood it to mean that the “first magnetic device and the rotor are ‘adjacent’ to one another, i.e., disposed next to one another, as measured along the central axis about which the rotor spins”). Patent Owner’s construction also is supported by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Crosby, who agrees that “adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis,” could be “one meaning,” along with “many other meanings.” Ex. 2014,8 19:13–20:11. In sum, consistent with our Institution Decision, we conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of “axially adjacent” is “at a position adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis.” See Dec. on Inst. 12.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Second, for the reasons below, we determine that we do not need to construe any other claim terms to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., 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)) (“[W]e need only construe” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. As we discuss above, we find “axially adjacent” to mean “adjacent to one another as measured along a central arguments that rest on Petitioner’s assertion that in the Parallel Litigation, Patent Owner “asserts that a magnetic element sealed within a rotor is . . . ‘axially adjacent.’” Id. at 20–21, n.6 (citing Ex. 1019, 5–7). In particular, we find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that Wampler teaches that magnetic pieces 88 (“a first magnetic device”) “are inserted [‘axially adjacent’] in…the impeller.” Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 80, Fig. 13; Ex. 1003 ¶ 174). We also find unavailing Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler’s Figure 13 and Mr. Crosby’s cited testimony that “the ‘impeller’ and ‘magnetic pieces’ are axially adjacent—situated next to each other on the same axis.” Id. at 21–22 (annotating Ex. 1008, Fig. 13; citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 174–176). Petitioner does not sufficiently explain this argument, but appears to conflate being adjacent along a central axis with about an axis. Id. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that under Patent Owner’s construction, Wampler also teaches this limitation, because Patent Owner “concedes that ‘axially adjacent’ components ‘have positioning that is next to one another, perhaps touching or sharing a common side, when measured along the axis.’” Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing PO Resp. 14). Petitioner mischaracterizes Patent Owner’s arguments and ignores Patent Owner’s showing that “axially adjacent” components are “distinct from components that are aligned with one another such that they overlap or occupy the same portion of an axis upon which they are positioned.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 78). For the preceding reasons, Petitioner fails to show by a” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,754,077 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,754,077
• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SAAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00112 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 10, 11, 14, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Schima and Akamatsu; the other asserted grounds were not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “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). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18).” slip op. at 10

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

    “sufficient basis for limiting the plain meaning of “magneto coupling.” That the ’357 patent describes embodiments using bar magnets does not serve to require the use of permanent magnets for the recited “magneto coupling.” See Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”)). Moreover, the claim language here is not so limited. 11 Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on Wampler and Bourque depend on the disclosure only of electromagnetic drives in each reference, implying that “Petitioner does not believe its own proposed narrower construction.” PO Resp. 6; see also Pet. 8 (Petitioner alleging that in the Parallel Proceeding Patent Owner “conflates ‘magneto coupling’ . . . with a stator drive using a stationary electromagnet, instead of a rotating magnet, to rotate the rotor magnet,” and asserting that as the basis for Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler and Bourque as teaching a “magneto coupling” in this proceeding (citing Ex. 1019, 9–11; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87)). distinguished “magneto coupling” drives from drives using stators. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1011, 1 (explaining that the rotating field is generated by rotating magnets in a magnetic coupling pump and by electric stator windings in a stator pump)). Petitioner does not explain how this cited reference evidences that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “magneto coupling” requires rotating permanent magnets. At most, this reference teaches an example device that provides “magneto coupling.” See Ex. 1011, 1. In sum, we agree with Patent Owner that “magneto coupling,” consistent with our Institution Decision, encompasses generating a rotating field either by rotating magnets or by an electromagnet / stator. See Inst. Dec. 22” slip op. at 22

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

    “ignores the readily apparent fact that the lower arrow is placed in a location that misrepresents the minimum distance between the magnetically driven rotor and the second magnetic device to suggest that Wampler teaches “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor,” as required by claim 1. Petitioner purports to justify this misrepresentation by asserting that “the vast majority of the impeller 74 is spaced significantly farther apart from the stators 90 and 94 than the magnetic pieces 88 are positioned from the stators 90 and 94.” Id. at 33–34. Claim 1 does not recite any feature based on the “vast majority” of a component and it is readily apparent from Petitioner’s own annotated version of Figure 11a that the distance from both the “motor magnets [88]” and “impeller 74” to the “circular electromagnetic stator[s] [90 and 94]” is the same. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has provided a “misleading Figure with two red arrows denoting measurement distances to illustrate its incorrect view that the second magnetic device is farther from the magnetically driven rotor than from the first magnetic device.” PO Resp. 13–15 (providing an annotated version of Wampler’s Figure 11a with an orange arrow showing that in Wampler the distances from the second magnetic device to both the rotor and the first magnetic device are the same). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to show that Wampler teaches “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor.”” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “To orient the pump in the least obtrusive position (i.e., in the human configuration, as in Figure 3), it was decided that the rotational axis of the pump’s rotor should be perpendicular to the body’s long axis. That resulted in a sharp bend in the flow before it enters the impeller. To minimize the losses in this transition, the flow is slightly accelerated through this elbow. that this type of elbow [i.e., the elbow used with Bourque’s centrifugal pump] was unnecessary,” applying Wampler to Bourque would have improved “blood flow.” Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 418–419; Ex. 1007, 402; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76). As explained above, Wampler does not teach that “this type of elbow” was unnecessary. Bourque uses a centrifugal pump with an additional elbow specifically so that the centrifugal pump may be oriented “in the least obtrusive position.” Ex. 1007, 402. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion that eliminating the elbow from Bourque would improve “blood flow.” Mr. Crosby’s declaration provides no additional explanation or support to show how “blood flow” would have been improved. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 419. Nor does Mr. Crosby address the fact that Bourque expressly states that “flow is slightly accelerated” through the elbow to “minimize losses in this transition.” Ex. 1007, 402. Eliminating the elbow from Bourque, as Petitioner and Mr. Crosby propose, would mean the pump could no longer be placed in “the least obtrusive position” according to Bourque and there is no persuasive evidence that such a modification would improve blood flow.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 11,351,357 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,351,357
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01494 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 5, 6, and 9–20 not shown unpatentable over either Bowen and Soukup or Nagahama and Soukup under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’909 patent (2004), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” where “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Pet. 18–19. In the Decision on Institution, we agreed with and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Dec. on Inst. 9. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Both experts utilized Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Ex. 1024 ¶ 25; Ex. 2053 ¶¶ 29–30. Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’909 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’909 patent and cited prior art, we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. Claim Interpretation We interpret the claims of the challenged patent using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such [claims] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. 15. We did not interpret any terms in the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 9–10. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Response. We conclude, based on the full trial record, that no term requires express interpretation to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” “‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Practice Guide § II.I, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide (last updated Dec. 12, 2025). “While replies . . . can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Id. An indication that a new issue is improperly raised in a reply is where a petitioner submits “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case” of unpatentability, such as a “newly raised rationale to combine the prior art references that was not expressed in the petition.” Id. That is the case here. Petitioner’s rationale in the Petition for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV based on Soukup was that such an artisan would have expected lowering the barrier height to increase TMR. See Pet. 34–36. Faced with Dr. Bokor’s testimony on cross-examination, Petitioner presents a new theory in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what impact lowering the barrier height would have (increase TMR, decrease it, or have no impact at all), but would have expected it to change in some “uncertain” way, which is a “legally sufficient motivation” in Petitioner’s view. See Reply 6–10, 13–16, 23–25. In other words, “[r]ather than explaining how its original” position that lowering barrier height would increase TMR “was correct,” Petitioner articulated “an entirely new theory . . . absent from the [P]etition” after Patent Owner cross-examined Dr. Bokor and “pointed out the flaws of [Petitioner’s] position” in its Response. See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by statute, [Federal Circuit] precedent, and Board guidelines.” Id.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Ultimately, the cross-examination testimony above is inconsistent with Dr. Bokor’s opinions in his declaration that, for example, “[i]t was understood to one of skill that lowering the barrier height to increase tunneling would have increased the TMR,” and “[o]ne of skill would have been motivated to adjust oxygen vacancy defects to improve TMR by lowering the barrier height.” See Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 176, 277 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 172 (“[O]ne of skill in the art would have been motivated to use [Soukup’s 0.33 eV] or similar height in an MgO MTJ to improve tunneling and hence TMR in Bowen.”). Accordingly, we do not find Dr. Bokor’s declaration testimony regarding a motivation to lower Bowen’s barrier height credible. It is Petitioner’s burden to provide a reasoned, evidence-supported explanation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV as disclosed in Soukup. See NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383; Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380; TriVascular, 812 F.3d at 1066. Petitioner’s reasoning in the Petition that lowering the barrier height (by introducing oxygen defects) would increase TMR is unsupported by evidence.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,968,909 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,968,909
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2021-01239 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, and 30 unpatentable as obvious over Reime, with claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 30 also obvious over Reime and Hinckley.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain of Petitioner’s evidence (Paper 28) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 34). We denied this motion. See Paper 41, 47–50.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’850 patent: one who “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and . . . years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch and/or proximity sensors, human-machine interaction and 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’850 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply the pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability. 4 US 2003/0034439 A1, published Feb. 20, 2003 (Ex. 1010, “Reime”). 5 US 2002/0021278 A1, published Feb. 21, 2002 (Ex. 1011, “Hinckley”). Petitioner lists the combination of Reime and Hinckley as a separate asserted ground for claim 26. We combine these two asserted grounds into one as they rely on the same combination. additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Final Dec. 8–9. This definition for one having ordinary skill was not the subject of appeal, and we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision on Remand. Moreover, it is consistent with the ’850 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “PO Resp. 17–29; Pet. Reply 8–15; PO Sur-reply 6–11. We construed this term in the Final Written Decision. Final Dec. 10–24. In particular, we concluded that (i) “detector assembly” means “two or more detector elements that detect electromagnetic radiation,” and (ii) a detector assembly is not required to be physically separate from (i.e., not interspersed with) a pixel array. Id. at 20, 22. The Federal Circuit found the first part of our construction erroneous. Appeal Dec. 7–10. In particular, the Federal Circuit concluded that “[t]he element.” Id. at 8. In addition, to guide the Board’s analysis on remand, the Federal Circuit construed “the terms ‘at an edge’ and ‘at least one edge’ [to] require a detector assembly to be arranged along one or more edges of a viewing plane defining plate.” Id. at 10–11. In other words, the Federal Circuit “clarif[ied] that arranging a detector assembly ‘at,’ ‘along,’ or ‘about’ ‘at least one edge’ or ‘an edge’ does not limit the detector assembly to being arranged entirely on ‘one edge.’” Id. at 12.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “the Federal Circuit already has concluded that claim 15 is obvious in view of Reime. Appeal Dec. 9–10. Claim 17 further recites “wherein the detector assembly comprises: a support substrate, and an arrangement of detector elements.” Ex. 1001, 67:15–18. We agree with Petitioner and find that Reime teaches these further limitations. Pet. 34–35; Pet. Remand 2–4; Pet. Resp. Remand 1–3. First, as we found in the Final Written Decision, Reime’s receivers 30 and 32 are two detector elements that detect electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light), and Reime’s receivers 30 and 32, collectively, comprise a detector assembly. Final Dec. 27–28 (citations omitted). Moreover, Reime’s two receivers 30 and 32 comprise a detector assembly having multiple detector elements (e.g., two receivers) to teach “an arrangement of detector elements.” Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 73, 86, Figs. 9A–9C; Ex. 2060,7 127:17–18; Pet. 32–33; Pet. Reply 20; Pet. Remand 3. In addition, as we found in the Final Written Decision, Reime teaches that each of receivers 30 and 32 are centered on opposite edges of the plate. 7 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Benjamin Bederson (Apr. 7, 2022). Ex. 1010, Fig. 6A, ¶ 82) (affirming that Reime teaches having one light receiver (e.g., 30 or 32) on each side of a four-sided touch pad). In further support, we agree with Petitioner and find that Reime teaches that receivers 30 and 32 “are mounted in the peripheral area surrounding the LCD 92.” Pet. 32–33; Ex. 1010 ¶ 86; see also id. at Figs. 9A–9C (showing that the receivers are positioned at the edge of the LCD screen); infra annotated Fig. 9E (showing receivers 30 and 32 along edges of the LCD). Accordingly, we find Reime’s detector assembly that comprises receivers 30 and 32 is arranged along two edges (one edge for each receiver) of the LCD, which meets the Federal Circuit’s construction for being arranged at at least one edge. See supra Section III (concluding “at least one edge” means “arranged along one or more edges”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,624,850 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,624,850
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2026 · IPR2024-00124 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–14, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over the Neufeld grounds; the Board found the IPMI and Lawrence grounds insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). In assessing 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) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962–63 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’140 patent. Dec. on Inst. 7–8. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of computer and/or” slip op. at 7

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

    “same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340–41, 51,343 (Oct. 11, 2018). In applying such standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). in claim 1 means “said managed network device.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for this term as it appears to be consistent with the Specification’s use of “element” as referring to networked devices, and with the overall claim. See generally Ex. 1002.” slip op. at 8

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

    “First, Petitioner argues that “an out of band access connection means” is a means-plus-function term with the recited function being “connecting said one or more network services or remote users with said secure management access controller for management of said network device.” Id. at 10. Petitioner argues that the function’s corresponding structure is “one or more of the following networks: a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) (2:45–57, 3:2–4, 12:37-61), an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) (2:45–57), a cellular network (6:14–21, 7:60–62, 12:37–61), an Ethernet network (12:37–61), a wireless network, and/or a Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (12:37–61, 15:55–60), where the one or more networks use one or more of the following protocols: [Simple Network Management Protocol (“SNMP”)], TFTP, FTP, DNS, SysLog, Telnet, SSH, HTTP, HTTPs, point to point IP, and/or XML (8:30–38).” Id. Second, Petitioner argues that “virtual management interface connection means” is a means-plus-function term with the following recited with said secure management access controller’; (ii) ‘provides logical separation of management data from user data,’ and (iii) ‘utilizes user interfaces of said managed network element for connecting said one or more network services or remote users with said secure management access controller.’” Id. at 10–11. Petitioner argues that the functions’ corresponding structure is a VPN. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:22–44, 6:63– 7:5, 12:5–21).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Lastly, we determine that we do not need to construe any other terms to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., 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 and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,325,140 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,325,140
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2026 · IPR2024-00109 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable as obvious over grounds involving Neufeld; the Board found the grounds involving IPMI and Huckins insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’016 patent. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of computer and/or network design and security or other relevant industry experience,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56)). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’016 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that we do not need to construe any term to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., 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. the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In addition, we find not credible Dr. Mishra’s deposition testimony that Neufeld teaches only out-of-band communication, and it is not possible for a remote management command to come to remote management controller 116 via network N and through NIC 110. See Ex. 1043,22 43:5– 44:6, 49:9–50:7; PO Sur-reply 4–5. This testimony is inconsistent with Neufeld’s express teachings, which we discuss above. Compare Ex. 1043, 43:5–44:6, 49:9–50:7, with Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11–12, 15, 34–35, 43, Figs. 1–2.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068−69 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that “the Board focused on what a skilled artisan would have been able to do, rather than what a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention”). Petitioner’s arguments focus on that the modified version of IPMI could have been made, rather than that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings to make the proffered combination. For example, Petitioner argues that the modified IPMI version is “one way to implement a side-band connection.” Pet. 62. This argues that the modified IPMI version could have been made. Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combined modifications because “IPMI’s LAN Controller already has the necessary logic and hardware to send packets to [the] managed server via the PCI bus as shown in unmodified version of Fig. 12-1.” Pet. Reply 23; see also id. at 24 (arguing that “implementing the I2C sideband interface taught by IPMI using a PCI-I2C controller/bridge is a simple and logical solution on the PCI bus”). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not explain why this would be a motivation to add Huckins’s “PCI-I2C Bus Controller/Bridge” to IPMI’s teachings. E.g., PO Resp. 60; PO Sur-reply 20. And, we find persuasive Dr. Mishra’s testimony that “[r]equiring a LAN controller to offload management data onto the PCI bus only to route it back internally via the I/O Controller Hub introduces unnecessary design complexity, reduces system performance, and consumes additional bandwidth and power, all without technical justification.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 148; see also id. ¶¶ 145–146 (testifying to the modified combination’s operation). We also find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s criticisms of the modified version of Figure 12-1 “do not defeat the Petition’s showing of obviousness because ‘[i]t’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Pet. Reply 26 (citing Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799– 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). But Petitioner does not address why the modified version of IPMI is suitable. Nor does Petitioner persuasively counter Dr. Mishra’s testimony as to why one of skill in the art would not have made the proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 24–26; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 145–148. In addition, in our view, Petitioner’s modification of IPMI to add Huckins’s “PCI-I2C Bus Controller/Bridge” is driven by impermissible hindsight and the desire to locate a distinct, second bus (the PCI bus) as required by the claims. Petitioner’s arguments to this end rely impermissibly on the ’016 patent itself as a roadmap. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.”’)); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 8,474,016 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,474,016

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.