- PTAB · Aug 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00574 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–7 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claim 1 over Choe and Workman.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For purposes of institution, we find sufficient Dr. Darrell’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choe and Workman because Workman discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line (Ex. 1003 ¶ 146), and additionally, because using Workman’s model to identify the horizon line would have been combining known elements (CNNs and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We find sufficient for institution Dr. Darrell’s testimony that because these models were well known, a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Choe and Workman to achieve the method of claim 1. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We have reviewed Mr. Andrews’s testimony to the contrary (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71–80) but, at this stage, do not find it persuasive. For example, to the extent Patent Owner and Mr. Andrews assert that Choe does not identify any “shortcomings” that would motivate a POSITA to look for a better approach like that of Workman (see Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 2003 ¶ 74), we note that it is “not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option,’” and “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill,” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we preliminarily agree that the combination of Choe and Workman teaches the subject matter of limitation [1B] sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“For purposes of institution, we find sufficient Dr. Darrell’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choe and Workman because Workman discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line (Ex. 1003 ¶ 146), and additionally, because using Workman’s model to identify the horizon line would have been combining known elements (CNNs and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We find sufficient for institution Dr. Darrell’s testimony that because these models were well known, a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Choe and Workman to achieve the method of claim 1. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We have reviewed Mr. Andrews’s testimony to the contrary (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71–80) but, at this stage, do not find it persuasive. For example, to the extent Patent Owner and Mr. Andrews assert that Choe does not identify any “shortcomings” that would motivate a POSITA to look for a better approach like that of Workman (see Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 2003 ¶ 74), we note that it is “not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option,’” and “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill,” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we preliminarily agree that the combination of Choe and Workman teaches the subject matter of limitation [1B] sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelOther
“would have had a Bachelor’s in Computer Science with a focus on computer/machine vision, and at least two years of experience with each of: (1) machine learning (including neural network) methods as applied to machine/computer vision and (2) classical machine/computer vision algorithms (e.g., edge detection, line identification, computation of camera parameters from horizon line, etc.)” and that additional education “could serve as a substitute for the experience requirement.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s definition and asserts that a POSITA “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science with one- or two-years training and/or experience in design of software for camera/sensor systems in the automotive industry.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2003 (Declaration of Scott Andrews) ¶ 35). We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, 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); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions based on the present record. Should the parties continue to disagree regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art during trial, we encourage the parties to explain how an automotive-focused definition, or the lack thereof, would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision. B. slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyOther
“For purposes of institution, we find sufficient Dr. Darrell’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choe and Workman because Workman discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line (Ex. 1003 ¶ 146), and additionally, because using Workman’s model to identify the horizon line would have been combining known elements (CNNs and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We find sufficient for institution Dr. Darrell’s testimony that because these models were well known, a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Choe and Workman to achieve the method of claim 1. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We have reviewed Mr. Andrews’s testimony to the contrary (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71–80) but, at this stage, do not find it persuasive. For example, to the extent Patent Owner and Mr. Andrews assert that Choe does not identify any “shortcomings” that would motivate a POSITA to look for a better approach like that of Workman (see Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 2003 ¶ 74), we note that it is “not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option,’” and “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill,” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,875,580 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00351 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–26 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id. Under the second Fintiv factor, the proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution because there is no trial date scheduled. Id. at 9; see Ex. 1031, 3. slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). The Board, however, has discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner meets that threshold. Id.; see, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). For the reasons that follow, we grant institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner further states that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA.” Id. Patent Owner submits a similar definition (see Prelim. Resp. 13–14), but states that a POSITA “would understand that . . . the subject of the patent is a software-based solution to broadcasting multimedia streams, and the skillset and expertise in hardware-based systems would not make one knowledgeable about software-based systems.” Prelim. Resp. 13–14. We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, 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); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions based on the present record. Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Claim 1 does not limit the “caching unit” in any way. With this in mind, we preliminarily agree that Farber discloses the subject matter of limitation 1a sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution. b.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,140,441 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00350 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13 for all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“After Patent Owner made these arguments, though, the district court in the Florida Litigation (1) stayed all deadlines indefinitely and (2) said that the October trial will not go forward as scheduled. Ex. 1028, 3. “A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Conclusion At this stage and on this record, it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Avellan. The Petition’s merits are compelling because Petitioner’s challenge plainly leads to a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelOther
“B. Merits 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to the Petition, Here, a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols. . . . A person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also meet the standard. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 68–69). Patent Owner provides a different definition: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions in the ‘002 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience working in the field of software systems used in generating and broadcasting multimedia streams. An individual with less technical education but more experience, or vice versa, could also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 59) (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the definition must include experience in software systems because the invention is a software-based solution. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 60). At this stage, our decision would be the same under either definition. Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“There is no dispute that (1) Avellan’s user initiates the request and eventually receives the stream and (2) gateway server 134 receives a request for a media stream for playback on a broadcast channel. See id. at 32–39; Pet. 22. The issue here is whether claim 1 requires that the recited “content provider” originates the request. We agree with Petitioner that claim 1 does not require this. Prelim. Reply 7. Apart from being received from the content provider, claim 1 does not limit the request’s origin in any way. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the request is received from the content provider. Ex. 1001, 14:51–54. Claim 1 recites “comprising” in the preamble of the method (id. at 14:50), which is a encompasses user-originated requests that are received from other entities. With this understanding of the claim, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a through its communication path from network 150 to user computers 1041–104n via gateway platforms 1301–130n. Pet. 22. That is, Avellan’s gateway platform 134 receives a request for at least one media stream, and claim 1 does not exclude user-originated requests. See id. We agree that the content can be video from CNN, BBC, ESPN, or other live-streaming television feeds. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:18–21). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a. See id. at 22. ii. Remaining Limitations Apart from the arguments discussed above, Patent Owner does not present arguments specifically directed to the other limitations of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. We determine that Petitioner’s arguments made in connection with those limitations are sufficient at this stage and on this record. Pet. 24–32. We agree with Petitioner that Avellan teaches obtaining content from the networks 150 and 152, as recited in 1b; rendering a webpage by a browser at gateway 134, as recited in 1c; generating the screen captures at gateway 134, as recited in 1d; and assembling and providing the media stream when gateway server 134 compresses the image or video format and sends it to the browser 106, as recited in 1e and 1f. Id. at 24–29. Petitioner has provided a sufficient rationale at this stage why a method with the subject matter recited in lg and 1h would have been obvious. Id. at 29– 32. Conclusion At this stage and on this record, it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Avellan. The Petition’s merits are compelling because Petitioner’s challenge plainly leads to a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 12
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,524,002 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00349 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Avellan anticipates claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id. slip op. at 6
- Skill levelOther
“B. Merits 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to the Petition, A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68). Patent Owner provides a different definition: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed inventions in the ‘074 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience working in the field of software systems used in generating and broadcasting multimedia streams. An individual with less technical education but more experience, or vice versa, could also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 58) (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the definition must include experience in software systems because the invention is a software-based solution. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 59). Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Apart from being received from the content provider, claim 1 does not limit the request’s origin in any way. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the request is received from the content provider. Ex. 1001, 14:48–50. Claim 1 recites “comprising” in the preamble of the method (id. at 14:47), which is a term that does not exclude additional, unrecited steps. Thus, claim 1 encompasses user-originated requests that are received from other entities. With this understanding of the claim, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a through its communication path from network 150 to user computers 1041–104n via gateway platforms 1301–130n and broadcast device 102. Pet. 17–18. That is, Avellan’s gateway platform 134 receives a request from broadcast device 102 for at least one media stream, and claim 1 does not exclude user-originated requests. See id. We agree that the content can be video from CNN, BBC, ESPN, or other live-streaming television feeds. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:18–21). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a. See id. at 17–19.” slip op. at 13
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,123,074 - Topp & Screed S.A. v. Somero Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00051 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by Quenzi and obvious over Quenzi; claims 10–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Jochems and Quenzi.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing. Although Jochems discloses that its machine includes “a vibration beam 27 which is driven by vibration motor 28” (Ex. 1004, 4:14–16), Jochems does not provide details regarding the nature of its vibration beam or how it functions. See generally Ex. 1004. Quenzi, on the other hand, explains that its vibrating beam “flatten[s], smooth[s] and consolidate[s] the uncured concrete while being partially supported thereon.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 13; see also id. ¶ 81 (“The floating action of the vibrator beam 20 over the uncured concrete then continues to consolidate, smooth, level and finish the uncured concrete surface.”). Petitioner’s contentions are supported by its witness, Mr. Breidenbach. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 183. Mr. Breidenbach further testifies that the benefits of a floating-type vibration beam, such as disclosed by Quenzi, were well known and desirable at the time the application resulting in the ’366 patent was filed. Id. ¶¶ 184–188.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “an undergraduate education in mechanical, civil, construction, or industrial engineering, or a related field and at least two years of experience in research, design, development, testing, or use of mechanical or industrial equipment.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education may substitute for experience and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). 3 At this stage of the proceeding, the parties have not directed us to any such objective evidence. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner’s interpretation of the Second Wherein Recitation. Of particular note, the ’366 patent states that, “[i]n the illustrated embodiment [of Figure 19], screed head assembly 314′ is attached at the front frame portion 312a.” Ex. 1001, 20:45–47 (emphasis added). Figure 19 is reproduced below. Figure 19 illustrates screeding machine 310′ comprising wheeled support 312, including front frame portion 312a, and screed head assembly 314′. Id. at 20:34–37. The screed head assembly is not mounted directly to the front frame portion. Rather, “screed head assembly 314′ is pivotally mounted to front frame portion 312a via an upper arm linkage 334 and a lower arm linkage 332.” Id. at 20:61–63. Thus, based on our review of the record, “attached at” as used in the ’366 patent does not require a direct connection. Instead, the use of intermediate components is within the meaning of “attached at.” It follows that “said vibratable member is adjustably attached at a rearward end of said grade establishing element” as recited in claim 1 does not require the vibratable member to be connected directly to the grade establishing element, but rather allows for the vibratable member to be connected to the grade establishing element via intermediary components. The patent Examiner and Applicant appear to have interpreted the term in the same manner during prosecution. See Ex. 1002, 94 (the Examiner finding that Nomura’s4 tamper 34 “is adjustably attached at a rearward end of” leveling blade 33), 116–18 (the Applicant addressing the Examiner’s rejection but not contesting the Examiner’s interpretation); Ex. 1007, Fig. 2 (illustrating the positioning of Nomura’s tamper 34 and leveling blade 33).” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Quenzi repeatedly discloses that its vibration beam floats on and is at least partially supported at the struck-off surface of the uncured concrete. In the summary section, Quenzi discloses that its “vibrating member generally floats upon or is supported directly on the uncured concrete surface created by the grade setting device ahead of it.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 9; see also id. ¶¶ 11 (“the ability of the apparatus to be at least partially supported upon the desired correct elevation surface it creates”), 12 (“[t]he concrete surface working member is at least partially supported on the uncured concrete surface”), 13 (“the concrete surface working member comprises a vibrating member or beam which is vibratable to flatten, smooth and consolidate the uncured concrete while being partially supported thereon”). Regarding the first embodiment discussed in the detailed description, Quenzi discloses that “the vibrator beam 20 floats on or is at least partially supported on the uncured surface” and “vibrator beam 20, along with the screeding device 10, floats on or is at least partially supported on the uncured concrete surface.” Id. ¶¶ 68, 70. Quenzi discloses that the vibrating beams of the asserted embodiments operate in the same manner as the first embodiment. See id. ¶¶ 90, 102, 121. Quenzi also explicitly discloses that the vibrating beams of the asserted embodiments operate in this same manner. See id. ¶¶ 92 (“the vibrating beam 220 rests upon the uncured concrete”), 112 (“vibrating beam 320 is at least partially supported by, or essentially ‘floating’ upon, the uncured concrete surface”), 121 (“vibrating beam 420 [is] substantially similar to . . . vibrating beam 320”); see also id. ¶ 141 (referring to the asserted embodiments when describing another embodiment as “[s]imilar to the embodiments discussed above, screeding device 810 is at least partially supported on an uncured concrete surface and moved along and over the concrete surface to screed and smooth the surface via vibration of the vibrator beam 820 as the vibrator beam 820 floats on or is at least partially supported on the uncured surface” (emphasis added)). And as correctly noted by Petitioner, the ’366 patent relies on Quenzi as an example of how its screed head assembly operates and is attached to the frame portion. See Ex. 1001, 20:45–54. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Quenzi supports Petitioner’s contentions. g. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 is anticipated by Quenzi.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,038,366 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,038,366 - Hydration Labs, Inc. D/B/A Bevi v. Smart Soda Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2024 · PGR2024-00002 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–18 are anticipated by Cimatti, and claims 6, 15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable on additional obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s declarant, Pete Wolski, testifies that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have had at least a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and would have had at least two years of practical experience with designing beverage dispensers.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 25). There is no dispute regarding Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner because it is consistent with the prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Petitioner contends that “[f]or this proceeding, Petitioner does not believe any claim constructions are needed.” Pet. 10–11. Our decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. 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 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Claim 1 additionally recites that “a concentration of a dietary supplement included in the selected function that is included in the enhanced flavored mixture is larger than a concentration of the dietary supplement included in the selected flavor that is included in the enhanced flavored mixture.” Ex. 1001, 12:28–33. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “a concentration of the dietary supplement included in the selected flavor is zero.” Id. at 12:36–38. Accordingly, claim 1 allows for the concentration of the dietary supplement included in the selected flavor to be zero.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“As for the remaining claims, Petitioner asserts that claims 6 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Cimatti, Bethuy, and O’Laughlin and over Cimatti, Bethuy, and Wallace. Pet. 93–98. Petitioner asserts that claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Cimatti, Bethuy, Shannon, and Holler. Pet. 98–101. We have reviewed those contentions and determine that Petitioner has also shown those claims to be unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence for the reasons given by Petitioner. Id. at 93– 101.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 11,724,927 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,724,927 - Cala Health, Inc. v. Emkinetics Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00511 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 6 based on Govier anticipation and Govier-Williams obviousness; claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 based on obviousness over Govier-Mumford and Govier-Williams-Mumford.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“We conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in the field of biomedical engineering, or a related discipline, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices” and that “[a]dditional work experience could serve as a substitute for a formal degree and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner argues that “no claim terms require express construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 10. We agree and do not expressly construe any terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Govier describes a study in which patients with overactive bladders were given “percutaneous electrical stimulations via a 34 gauge needle placed near the tibial nerve 3 finger breadths above the ankle.” Ex. 1005, 1193. Specifically, “[a] 34 gauge, solid stainless steel needle was advanced through the skin” and “the needle was advanced approximately 3 to 4 cm. posterior to the tibia and, if advanced further, would traverse anterior to the fibula.” Id. at 1194. Govier further explains that “[a]n electrocardiogram ground pad was placed over the medial aspect of the calcaneus” and “[a] stimulator was then connected to the needle and the ipsilateral ground pad.” Id. This arrangement is depicted in Govier’s Figure 3, which is reproduced below.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 9,387,338 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,387,338 - Cala Health, Inc. v. Emkinetics Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00508 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Govier and obvious over Govier and Williams; the Board did not reach the additional grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in the field of biomedical engineering, or a related engineering discipline, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices” and that “[a]dditional work experience could serve as a substitute for an engineering degree.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner argues that “no claim terms require express construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 10. We agree and do not expressly construe any terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and evidence and conclude that they prove anticipation of the challenged claims by Govier for the reasons given by Petitioner. Pet. 19–55.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“For claim 1, Petitioner asserts that, if Govier does not disclose applying an electrode patch to the outer surface of the skin, skilled artisans would have had reason to substitute Williams’s known electrode patch for Govier’s ground pad as a simple substitution of one known structure for another performing the same function—“creating a current path along the tibial nerve”—and yielding the same results—“ability to stimulate the tibial nerve to treat overactive bladder.” Id. at 21–24. Petitioner contends also that, if Govier does not disclose a controller including a pulse generator, skilled artisans would have had reason “to substitute Williams’s pulse generator for Govier’s stimulator.” Id. at 27–29. Petitioner reasons that skilled artisans would have found it obvious to try Williams’s pulse generator because of its similarities with Govier’s stimulator—“each create current pulses between 1–10 mA.” Id. at 28. Petitioner reasons further that using Williams’s pulse generator would have been a simple substitution. Id.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 9,757,584 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,757,584 - Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00063 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–11, and 14–16 were not proven unpatentable because Hibi does not teach operating climate control based on battery level or determining available climate-control time from that level.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“d) Analysis We agree with Petitioner that Hibi teaches operating its climate control system in an AUTO mode for a duration of time. That time can be up to and beyond the low battery abnormality condition. As explained above, the claim language at least requires instructions that operate the climate control mechanism based on the predetermined battery level in some manner. Patent Owner is correct that Hibi does not care about its battery level for operation of its climate control mechanism. See PO Resp. 42–44. Patent Owner is also correct that “in response to a low battery event, Hibi’s system simply turns on the engine and charges the battery.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 5). And as Patent Owner further notes, “if a user selects a climate control temperature in system setting mode of Hibi, that temperature is unchanged in response to a low battery event” and “[i]nstead, the temperature remains constant in response to the low battery, as Hibi’s vehicle simply turns the gas engine on and charges the battery.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 43, Fig. 5; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 91–94; Ex. 2005, 53:13–54:14). Because Hibi does not consider battery level for the operating instructions associated with its climate control system, Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 fails. In its Reply Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s contentions by addressing a scenario where limitation 1[h] requires ceasing the selected mode of operation. See Pet. Reply 19–20. As explained above, we do not read limitation 1[h] as requiring ceasing the selected mode of operation. And Petitioner’s explanation in its Reply does not address the issue with its challenge noted above. That is, even in its contentions regarding Hibi ceasing operation, Petitioner still relies on operation where Hibi’s climate control system is operated wholly independent of battery level considerations. See id. at 19 (discussing ceasing operation in Hibi based on a change from climate control with battery on to climate control with engine on). There does not appear to be any dispute that Hibi operates its climate” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,819,135 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,819,135 - SNF S.A. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2022-01534 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground because the evidence failed to establish the claimed filter ratio or support the proposed combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“In our Decision to Institute this proceeding, we adopted Dr. Barati’s proposed level of skill based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology disclosed in the ’320 patent, and Dr. Barati’s opinion testimony. Dec. Inst. 17 (“we adopt Dr. Barati’s definition of the level of ordinary skill”). Patent Owner states it “does not dispute the level of skill applied by the Board in its institution decision.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, in this Decision, based on the evidence and the arguments of the parties, we maintain and adopt the level of ordinary skill stated in the Decision to Institute. In this proceeding, a person of ordinary skill would have had a Ph.D. in Chemical or Petroleum Engineering (or related science or engineering discipline) with 2-3 years of experience in the design and implementation of methods for hydrocarbon recovery including use of polymer compositions in such recovery methods. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill might substitute several years of actual design or implementation experience for the advanced degree. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 18.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citations omitted)). We determine that a specific construction of the claims is not necessary to reach a decision in this inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. [Citations omitted.] If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the 17 Again, to avoid confusion, this citation format is to page 15 of Exhibit C, which is an attachment to Exhibit 1012 in this proceeding. questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient. Id. at 1260 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner fails to provide any persuasive evidence or argument that claims 1, 2, 13–15, and 20–25 would have been obvious in view of Li. As discussed above, anticipation and obviousness are different grounds, requiring different analyses, and different evidence. Petitioner fails to establish what modifications in Li would have been obvious and why it would have been obvious to make the modifications with a reasonable expectation of success. The word “obvious” appears in Ground 1 only in the analysis of claim 24, clause D, on page 37 of the Petition, where Petitioner merely states the conclusion that this clause “would be obvious” [sic, the statute requires a temporal component to establish the claim “would have been obvious”]. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to provide the requisite evidence and arguments that claims 1, 2, 13–15, and 20–25 would have been obvious in view of Li.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,626,320 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,626,320
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.