- Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. v. P2i Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Cohen and Legein or Francesch and Legein; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’087 patent in June 20154 “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29); PO Resp. 13 (Patent Owner stating that it “does not dispute this characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also PO Sur-reply 1–2 (noting both parties’ agreement on the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the fully developed trial record, we determine that no claims need an express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Because of Patent Owner’s shifting definitions of the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan, it is unclear on the complete record what precise definition Patent Owner and Dr. Senkevitch are applying when arguing the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 40, 52–55, 60, 68, 74, 76, 77, 80–86, 89, 91, 94, 95, 100, 102–105, 108, 110, 111, 113–116, 118–120, 122, 124, 127–134. We, therefore, give Dr. Senkevitch’s testimony regarding the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art minimal weight, which leaves us with Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported arguments regarding the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13. Moreover, as Petitioner correctly points out, the ʼ087 patent expressly teaches that the precise conditions for forming a protective polymeric coating “will vary depending upon factors such as, without limitation, the nature of the monomer compound, the crosslinking agent, the substrate, as well as the desired properties of the coating” and that such “conditions can be determined using routine methods.” Ex. 1001 15:1–15:5 (emphasis added); Pet. Reply 17. Where the patent itself leaves to the judgment of an ordinarily skilled artisan the assessment of these factors to ascertain suitable conditions for forming the protective coating, we find persuasive Petitioner’s view that it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to ascertain such suitable conditions.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claims of the ʼ087 patent recite obtaining the protective cross-linked polymeric coating “by exposing the device or component to a plasma,” the field of endeavor analysis in an analogous art inquiry does not exclusively turn on the claims at issue, but rather takes account of the entirety of a patent’s disclosure. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the PTO must show adequate support for its findings on the scope of the field of endeavor in the application’s written description and claims” (emphasis added)); In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting an argument that the field of endeavor was limited to a claimed “Internet terminal” when “the specification describes various communication media, including facsimile machines and email, as related to the invention.”). This is significant here because the ʼ087 patent discloses that “[t]he … invention relates to protective coatings” and specifically “relates to protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof, and methods of forming such coatings.” Ex. 1001, 1:14–17. Based on this disclosure, we find that the ʼ087 patent’s field of endeavor relates to “protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof” broadly, not just those formed on such devices or components via a plasma polymerization process as asserted by Patent Owner. Id. Although Cohen does not explicitly disclose that its crosslinked polymers constitute a “protective coating,” Cohen does disclose that its “copolymerizable mixture can be cast into films” (Ex. 1004, 2:61–62), that the polymerization can “effected in situ,” and that the polymers may be used in “numerous” electrical applications (id. at 5:17–25). Tr. 8:9–10:2, 27:2– 21; see Pet. Reply 5 (explaining how “Cohen described insulating polymers that could be applied as films and be used to protect substrates including cables and electrical coils.” (citing Ex. 1004, 2:60–63, 5:13–25)). These disclosures suggest strongly that Cohen’s crosslinked polymers––if cast into a film or formed in situ on an electrical device or component––would serve as a protective coating on that electrical device or component, even though Cohen does not expressly refer to its crosslinked polymers ipsis verbis as a “protective coating.” Thus, we find that Cohen is within the field of endeavor of the ʼ087 patent.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 11,041,087 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,041,087 - Tennant Company v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · IPR2021-00625 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand
Claims 13, 14, and 17–27 were not shown unpatentable because Tennant did not establish that Wikey or Davies inherently disclosed the claimed microbubbles and nanobubbles.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11. On September 19, 2024, we authorized the parties to file supplemental briefing, stating also that the “parties are not authorized to present new factual assertions, provide additional exhibits, or raise new arguments beyond those directed to the issues raised in the remand.” Ex. 3001. Pursuant to this authorization, Petitioner filed an Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 61; “Pet. Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Patent Owner filed a Lead Brief on Remand (Paper 62; “PO Br. Rem.”) in support of its contentions. Petitioner filed a Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 66; “Pet. Reply Br. Rem.”). Patent Owner filed a Responsive Brief on Remand (Paper 65; “PO Resp. Br. Rem.”).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Accordingly, and in line with our previous determination that “Wikey appears to disclose each limitation of claim 13 except ‘microbubbles and nanobubbles having a bubble diameter of less than 50 microns’” (Final Dec. 20), we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey inherently discloses microbubbles or nanobubbles. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Wikey discloses every limitation of claim 13.” slip op. at 56
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded our anticipation determinations as to claims 13, 14, and 17–27. Tennant, 11.1 The Federal Circuit further stated: “Because we vacate and remand to the Board to consider Tennant’s anticipation argument, we do not reach Tennant’s obviousness arguments (which depends on its contention that either Wikey or Davies produce nanobubbles).” Id. at 11.” slip op. at 3
Patent outcomesUS RE45,415 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham - PTAB · Feb 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00996 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 13–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. The art or arguments presented in the Petition are not “substantially the same” as those previously presented to the Office when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art and arguments. Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trs. of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that: [A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree or higher in electrical engineering, at least 3 years of experience designing or researching electronic circuits, and familiarity with power electronics and inductive power transfer circuits. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner adopts the Petitioner’s proposal.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard,” and “[h]ere, given the remarkable overlap between the preferred embodiment of the ’461 patent and the prior art/predictable combinations articulated in Grounds 1A–3, Petitioners submit that no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner states that, “[t]o simplify the issues before the Board, Patent Owner has not asserted any claim constructions in this preliminary response and adopts the Petitioner’s position that ‘[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.’” Prelim. Resp. 17 (quoting Pet. 8). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner does not cite to evidence, such as expert testimony, to support its implied argument that Olson’s measured current is “fundamentally different” from the current received by the primary coil. See Prelim. Resp. 31–32. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Woods, on the other hand, testifies, inter alia, that “[t]he ‘[c]urrent measured by current measure block 226 is used in the calculation of power, which as depicted in FIG. 14, measures the ‘power in’ provided to transmit block 214/primary coil 54.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 74–75, Fig. 14) (first alteration added); see also, e.g., id. ¶ 42 (Dr. Woods testifying that the measured current to the power supply “is the current driving the external antenna 52, via the transmit block 214 and to the primary coil 54.” (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 74–75, 112, Fig. 14)). Paragraph 75 of Olson, cited in support of that testimony, provides: “The power in is gauged by the power generated by charging unit 50 and is determined by multiplying the voltage of the internal voltage of charging unit 50, e.g., the voltage of a battery or batteries internal to charging unit 50, by the current driving external antenna 52.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 75 (emphasis added). We note that external antenna 52 includes primary coil 54. See, e.g., Fig. 14. Dr. Woods’ testimony is, at this stage, unrebutted. Patent Owner also argues that “Petitioner fails to provide any evidence regarding the function of Olson’s microprocessor 212 in relation to measuring input power,” and that, “[w]hile Olson describes a power calculation in paragraph [0075], Olson does not describe this power calculation as performed by microprocessor 212.” Prelim. Resp. 32 (citing Pet. 16; Ex. 1004 ¶ 72) (first alteration added). At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the microprocessor. Although Patent Owner does not bear the burden to show patentability, we observe that Patent Owner does not suggest that there is another component in Olson’s external charging device that might perform the admittedly-disclosed power calculation. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Dr. Woods testifies that microprocessor 212 receives the measured current and the input voltage of the charging device, and, from those values, calculates power in. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–44 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71–78, Fig. 14); see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 74, Fig. 14 (Olson stating that “[c]urrent measured by current measure block 226 is used in the calculation of power in along with the voltage of batteries 160,” and Figure 14 depicting the signal from measure block 226 as an input to microprocessor 212). Dr. Woods’ testimony is, at this stage, unrebutted.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,626,461 - Vusiongroup SA v. Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01045 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its four § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. At best, Schwartz’s disclosure cited by Petitioner teaches aggregating product information obtained from different stores, but neither the Petition nor Dr. Wolfe explains sufficiently how aggregating product information would have suggested cross-correlating different product facing bounding boxes to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 35–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–151. We are not persuaded that aggregating product information and cross-correlating different product facing bounding boxes would have been recognized as similar or comparable processes. Moreover, Petitioner does not even assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Schwartz cross-correlates one or more product facing bounding boxes and one or more other product facing bounding boxes as required by limitation [1.5]. Instead, Petitioner asserts only that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized Schwartz . . . cross-correlates that product and affiliated shelf added). Furthermore, limitation [1.5] recites cross-correlating different product facing bounding boxes by matching shelf label content of the different product facing bounding boxes. But Petitioner does not explain adequately how the combination of Schwartz and Katircioglu satisfies this requirement. Pet. 35–37. Although Petitioner asserts that the combination discloses associating shelf label content with product facing bounding boxes (id. at 30–35), we are not directed to any disclosure in either Schwartz or Katircioglu that teaches or suggests matching the shelf label content of different product facing bounding boxes. For the above reasons, Petitioner fails to persuade us that the combination of Schwartz and Katircioglu discloses limitation [1.5]. Therefore, we determine Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to the contention that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Schwartz and Katircioglu.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in November 2016 would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two or more years of work experience or research related to computer vision, image analytics, machine learning, artificial intelligence or automated object recognition methods and systems, or equivalent training and work experience in the field. Formal education can substitute for work experience and relevant work experience could substitute for formal education. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Patent Owner indicates it agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[n]o formal claim constructions are necessary ‘to resolve the controversy.’” Pet. 9 (quoting Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Petitioner adds that there is a rebuttable presumption that § 112(f) does not apply because the challenged claims do not recite “means.” Id. In the event the presumption is overcome with respect to the claim terms “processor” and “product classifier,” Petitioner identifies the disclosure describing the corresponding structure for these terms. Id. at 9–10. Patent Owner contends that claim construction is not necessary and the claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 5. Regarding the claim terms “processor” and “product classifier,” Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not advanced any argument to rebut the presumption that § 112(f) does not apply. Id. at 6. any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,087,272 - Intel Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-01008 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that the challenged claims do not need construction to demonstrate unpatentability. Pet. 14. Petitioner, however, notes that the parties in the ITC proceeding identified above dispute the meaning of several claim terms. Id. (citing Ex. 1026). Petitioner specifically notes that “the parties dispute what is required of independent claims 1, 5, and 16 to ‘determin[e] how many pixels’ to filter in each block.” Id. (citing Ex. 1026, 6–7). Petitioner argues that “ITC Respondent Lenovo mathematical basis (no relationship) with the pixel values of the pixels in said neighboring block’” (id. (citing Ex. 1026, 6–7)), but Patent Owner “contends that no construction is necessary,” “and the ‘plain meaning’ does not foreclose some ‘mathematical basis’ existing as long as separate decision values are calculated for each block” (id. (citing Ex. 1027, 14–19)). Petitioner indicates that Ground 1 adopts Patent Owner’s broader construction from the ITC proceeding and Ground 2 adopts Lenovo’s narrower construction. Id. at 14–15. Patent Owner argues that “none of the asserted grounds disclose or render obvious the Challenged Claims under the plain meaning of the claims (which is [Patent Owner’s] proposed construction) or under Lenovo’s narrower proposed construction.” Prelim. Resp. 29. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, we are not persuaded that modifying Aksu in view of Gonzalez in the manner proposed by Petitioner overcomes this problem. As noted above, Petitioner asserts that, in the proposed combination, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the Laplacian’s output would be compared directly to a threshold based on β—just like Aksu’s difference calculations—to determine how many pixels to filter.” Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1019, 13:15–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 406–410). We disagree with this assertion, however, because it relies on erroneously equating the output of calculations (i.e., |r1-rj| and |r1-ri+1|). In other words, Aksu’s difference calculations, although used in setting dr, are not the same as dr; and we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered comparing Gonzalez’s Laplacian output to threshold β because Aksu discloses comparing its difference calculations to β. As noted above, we are not directed to any disclosure in Aksu of comparing dr to β. In addition, Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony on this point is not persuasive. Specifically, Dr. Schonfeld testifies that “dr can simply be defined as the output of the Laplacian (dr=|r3-2r2+r1|), and dr could be directly compared to a threshold based on β.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 408 (underline emphasis added). This testimony, however, is entitled to little weight because Dr. Schonfeld fails to provide a sufficient underlying basis for his opinion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail). Moreover, opining that output of the Laplacian, dr, could be directly compared to β does not establish sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[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.”).” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“G. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 64–66; Paper 8. Petitioner argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate in this case. Pet. 85–86; Paper 7. Because we are not persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim as discussed above, we need not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial under § 325(d).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,641,841 - Intel Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-01009 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“Although not identical, the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony cited by Petitioner does not rectify this problem. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 263. Dr. Schonfeld does not actually state that the well as the number of pixel differences, as “variables” that “were known to control the frequency response of the filter, or, in other words, how much particular frequencies would be filtered,” as allegedly shown by Gonzalez.9 Id. (citing Ex. 1020, 153, 273). But Dr. Schonfeld does not explain adequately how the cited portions of Gonzalez disclose that the coefficients were known to control the frequency response in a deblocking filter. Indeed, the cited portions of Gonzalez do not appear to discuss determining offsets for deblocking filtering or the coefficients used in an equation for determining offset. See Ex. 1020, 153, 273. Accordingly, this testimony is entitled to little weight because Dr. Schonfeld fails to provide a sufficient underlying basis for his opinion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,142,659 - PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00994 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 9–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Onishi-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially 4 For purposes of this Decision, we assume the challenged claims have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant aspects of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112- 29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), and we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. The art or arguments presented in the Petition are not “substantially the same” as those previously presented to the Office when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art and arguments. Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trs. of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’696 patent. Further, we decline to discretionarily deny inter partes review. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’696 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. However, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Mercier, opines that [A]t the time of the ’696 Patent, a POSITA would have a working knowledge of wireless charging and inductive charging. The person would have gained this knowledge through an undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working in the field of wireless or inductive charging device design, or testing of such wireless or inductive charging device testing, or 5 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. an equivalent combination of academic study and work experience. More education (e.g., a Master’s degree) or work experience any relevant field may compensate for a deficit in one of the relevant qualifications stated above. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26. We observe that, in Dr. Mercier’s definition, the undergraduate degree categories are a bit broader and the experience possibly a bit more specific than in Petitioner’s definition. However, at this stage and absent argument to the contrary by the parties, we discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Dr. Mercier’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“near-linear region—consistent with the quoted applicant’s use of the term “near-linear”—rather than a linear or non-linear region, which seemingly would encompass the entire curve. As to the second part, we understand Patent Owner to be referring to the purported benefit of linear control, and we determine that Patent Owner has not explained adequately why such a benefit should be read into the claim term “substantially different,” particularly where the quoted Specification support does not explicitly mention linear regulation.7 See Ex. 1001, 21:61–63 (“The induced voltage 7 To the extent that Patent Owner relies on its declarant’s testimony as an explanation of Patent Owner’s claim construction position, we remind Patent Owner about the prohibition on incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019, 35–36 can be increased by reducing the transmission frequency and can be reduced by increasing the transmission frequency.”). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that— consistent with the Specification’s description of the frequency that is “[p]referably . . . selected” and applicant’s argument regarding the same during prosecution—“a transmission frequency substantially different from said characteristic resonant frequency of said inductive couple” encompasses frequencies that lie within one of the near-linear regions of a frequency-amplitude graph associated with the inductive couple. See Ex. 1001, 21:20– 24; Ex. 1002, 70. At this time and for purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not reach the issue of the outer bounds of the scope of “substantially different.” We also note that independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim and the subject limitation 1.7 further defines the “driving circuit” recited in limitations 1.5 and 1.6. Specifically, limitation 1.7 requires a driving circuit that is “configured and operable to produce said oscillating driving voltage at a transmission frequency” that is “substantially different” from the inductive couple’s resonant frequency. Ex. 1001, 28:43–46. In future briefing, the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art references should focus on that recited structure, i.e., a circuit that is configured and operable to produce the recited frequency.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,048,696 - PTAB · Nov 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00851 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims 1–7 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of challenged claims 1–7. We thus deny institution of inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) (“At any” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant prior art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112[(f)] applies” and that “the failure to use the word ‘means’ also creates a rebuttable presumption—this time that § 112[(f)] does not apply.”12 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part) (internal citations omitted). Because the “sealing means” limitation includes the word “means,” we start from the rebuttable presumption that § 112(f) applies. Petitioner does not address the applicability of § 112(f) and does not rebut the presumption. We continue the analysis, however, and, for the reasons below, we agree with Patent Owner that § 112(f) applies to the “sealing means” limitation.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. “fits behind” In wherein clause (vi), claim 1 recites: “the outwardly pointing outer flange of the first connecting device fits behind the inner flange of the nut unit.” Ex. 1001, 9:4–5 (emphasis added). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner discusses the term “fits behind” in this claim language. See Prelim. Resp. 41–45. We need not construe explicitly this language or any other claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,851,030 - Cub Elecparts Inc. v. Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00744 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and at least one year of experience in sensor/detector design or RF communications (RFIDs)” and “would have a working knowledge of tire pressure management systems and, as most POSA would also be automobile owners, would have had personal experience with tire pressure management systems which have been required in all new cars, trucks, and SUVs in the United States since 2007.” Pet. 17. Petitioner adds that “[e]ducation may substitute for experience and vice versa.” Id.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 17. Petitioner notes that, in the tire pressure detecting field, terms such as “detector,” “sensor,” and “monitor” relate to the same device and can be used interchangeably. Id. at 17–18. Patent Owner contends that no claim term needs construction to resolve the grounds asserted in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 16. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s unsupported assertion that tire pressure sensors typically are programmed with only the ID as part of the factory installation is insufficient to establish obviousness in this instance. Petitioner does not provide adequate reasoning or evidence to 11 Petitioner relies on the same analysis of this claim 26 limitation for the substantially similar limitation of claim 27. Pet. 66. Accordingly, our analysis of the claim 26 limitation applies equally to the corresponding limitation of claim 27. art would have known that tire pressure sensors typically are programmed at the factory with a single ID. Furthermore, even if assuming for the sake of argument that Petitioner’s assertion is correct, the Petition fails to explain adequately how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the combination of Tang and Lemense to store only the old identification in the old tire pressure detector.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,031,064
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.