- Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-00634 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 8–13, 15, 16, and 19–24 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho, with claims 16 and 19 also relying on the Quick Connection Art; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner proposes that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] in the field to which the ’105 Patent is directed would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering or a related field or, as a substitute, at least two years of work or” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of “integrally molded with” as “molded together as a single structure.” Paper 21, 15.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that: a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the proposed modification, nor does the Petition include any analysis regarding why a POSITA would be motivated to move from a vertical extended portion to a radial extended portion. Indeed, a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar as it introduces another sudden directional change into the fluid flow system. PO Resp. 58–59 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 242).” slip op. at 32
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the ’105 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 63–65; PO Sur-reply 26–29. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 of the bowl fill valve 109, the flow of water through the bowl fill valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288. Further, the ’606 Application states: The bowl fill valve 109 may be, for example, a ball valve, a gate valve, a globe valve, a plug valve, a diaphragm valve, a butterfly valve, a needle valve, a sliding gate, a quick turn valve, a knife valve or any other appropriate type of valve as can be appreciated by those with ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 9,103,105 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,103,105 - Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01261 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach the claimed predetermined cycle for controlling distal fluid flow.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(1) a person with a B.S. in engineering or an equivalent field, with two-four years of academic or industry experience in aspiration embolectomy and thrombectomy or comparable industry experience who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including a physician, to develop embolectomy or thrombectomy devices; or (2) an interventional neurosurgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in embolectomy or thrombectomy procedures, and who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including an engineer, to develop such a medical device. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 48). Petitioner also contends that, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner states that for purposes of its PO Response, it “accepts ¶ 44). We adopt Petitioner’s characterization because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’402 patent and the cited prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding 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 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“specification explicitly includes sensors similar to those in the prior art in support of their argument that the claimed “predetermined cycle” must not exclude the use of such sensors. Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:55–33:7, 40:66–41:5, 44:9–29). We reviewed the portions of the specification cited by Petitioner. We agree with Patent Owner that one excerpt discussing sensor use appears to be directed to triggering the predetermined cycle rather than causing timing changes during the cycle itself (Ex. 1001, 32:55–66) (describing use of a pressure sensor to “determine when the vacuum channel 3 is clogged by a thrombus and automatically perform the unclogging procedures described herein”), while another excerpt discusses a sensor that Petitioner that the ’402 patent discusses the use of sensors to “tune” the system and that such “tuning” can be done statically (setting the cycle timing in advance) or dynamically (adjusting the timing during the cycle itself). See Ex. 1001, 48:19–49:50. Overall, we find that these disclosures involving sensors demonstrate that sensors may be used in various ways in different embodiments. However, none of these disclosures explicitly discuss the use of sensors in conjunction with a “pre-determined cycle.” Therefore, we find that the ’402 patent specification’s discussion of “sensors” are not particularly informative as to the appropriate construction of a “predetermined cycle” and do not outweigh the other explicit disclosures of “predetermined cycle” in the patent. We next turn to the other intrinsic evidence discussed by the parties — the prosecution history. As discussed by Patent Owner, in the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner found that Garrison did not teach or suggest a “predetermined cycle” because Garrison’s controller “changed the cycle of opening and closing the valves based on feedback from sensors.” Ex. 1004, 86. We acknowledge that the patent applicant filed subsequent comments during prosecution in which they stated that they “do[] not concede that the Examiner’s characterizations of the terms of the claims and the prior art are correct.” Id. at 29. However, we agree with Patent Owner that the importance of the Examiner’s statement in the Notice of Allowance does not rely on it being an express disclaimer (a standard which it does not meet). PO Sur-reply 8. We also considered Petitioner’s contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of Garrison may have been in error (PO Resp. 16); however, even if this were true, the Examiner’s statement still provides helpful insight into how the Examiner was interpreting the term sensors to change the opening and closing of valves during a cycle was not a “predetermined cycle.” Id. at 86. In sum, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the usage of the term “predetermined cycle” in the ’402 patent specification and prosecution history. Thus, after considering all of the cited evidence, we construe “predetermined cycle” to mean that “the timing of the sequence of valve operations in the cycle is determined beforehand, i.e., fixed, rather than varying based on feedback after operation begins.”” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. Other Terms The parties also provided proposed constructions for the limitations of “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” and “control[ling] fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” See Pet. 15–16; Pet. Reply 1–8; PO Resp. 22–24; PO Sur-Reply 2–6. However, having evaluated the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor Mr. Brown propose any combination of Yang and Mullins that does not include Mullins’s pressure sensor in order “to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Indeed, in addressing the “predetermined cycle” limitation, Mr. Brown contends that Mullins discloses a “cycling controller that ‘varies aspiration pressure according to sensed pressure within the catheter lumen.’” Ex.1005 ¶¶ 131–32 (citing, e.g., Ex.1008, 27:40–28:20 (“[a] novel aspect of this pump system is the incorporation of feedback into the pump algorithm in order to produce more effective pressure cycling”)). This use of a sensor to change pressure during a cycle, is not a “predetermined cycle” under our construction. combinations is its discussion of distal end flow control, not for its sensors.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 83). However, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds rely on the combination of Yang and Mullins, especially with regard to Mullins’s disclosure of “a controller” in order “to control fluid flow in and out.” As discussed above, Mullins relies on the sensor-feedback approach in order to control flow and we find that Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence of how the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins would control flow without using Mullins’s sensor feedback approach. See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (error to “consider[] … references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in [them] … that diverge from and teach away from the invention”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of Yang and Mullins discloses or renders obvious “a controller configured to open and close the vacuum valve and the vent valve in a predetermined cycle to change a level of vacuum at the distal end of the catheter and to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective evidence and arguments, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’402 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Yang and Mullins.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,406,402 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,406,402 - Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,906,508 - Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00749 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Gallagher and Schofield; claims 5–7 and 14–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 21. 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. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As a general rule, unless the steps of a method claim actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation modified). “However, a claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” Id. (cleaned up). “[O]rdinarily in process claims steps taken concurrently are the equivalent of steps taken successively.” In re White, 39 F.2d 974, 975 (CCPA 1930); see also Cybersettle, 243 F. App’x. at 609 (finding “the step of calculating the differences between demands and offers can occur concurrently with the [next enumerated step of] receipt of multiple demands and offers” and “the testing step of ‘determining whether any of the differences fall within the predetermined settlement range’ may occur concurrently with the receipt and comparison of the bids” (citation modified)). This is especially true here, given that the recitations at issue are functional language in an apparatus (system) claim. We further agree with Petitioner that the ’328 patent discloses such concurrent performance of these steps: Either concurrent with or subsequent to the identification of road signs 30 and generation of asset management database 24, the computer processor 22 evaluates that portion 32 of each video frame or image that depicts a road sign 30 to determine a set of color values 40, 42 for each of a plurality of colors on the road sign 32. A retroreflectivity value is generated for each color portion 34, 36 on each frame of the tagged videostream 20 containing the road sign 30 that represents a different color value 40, 42. slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner is correct to the extent that it need not show that “the features of [Schofield] may be bodily incorporated into the structure of [Gallagher],” but Petitioner must prove that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.” Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381. For claim 9, Petitioner proposes to modify Gallagher’s system to use “Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within a field of view” in Gallagher’s system. Pet. 23. Thus, Petitioner’s combination does not require the combination of Gallagher’s and Schofield’s sensors into a single system, and Patent Owner’s “sensor fusion” argument is inapposite. See Tr. 48:8–49:6 (Patent Owner’s counsel confirming that the problem of “sensor fusion” stems from combining disparate sensors in a single system). As noted above, Schofield teaches considering the relative location of the light source in determining whether the light source is from headlights or taillights (that is, an object of interest). See Ex. 1006, 9:26–35. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use this teaching in Gallagher’s device to help distinguish between road markers that are arranged side-by-side and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77 (“[An ordinarily skilled artisan] would have seen Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within the field of view as advantageous because it would have allowed Gallagher’s computer to associate the measured reflectance level with the appropriate road marker.”), 79 (“[I]mplementing this determination would have required [an ordinarily skilled artisan] to implement only conventional techniques of image processing (identifying a location of a particular pixel within an array), which was well known by [an ordinarily skilled artisan], to predictably yield the result of the location within a field of view indicating an intensity value associated with a road marker. Given that Schofield and Gallagher disclose similar types of arrays, this combination would have merely required the use of Schofield’s known technique to improve Gallagher’s similar device in the same way.”).” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable
“A reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,328 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,328 - Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01111 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Gallagher and Schofield; claims 5–7 and 14–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 21. 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. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction needed
“As a general rule, unless the steps of a method claim actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation modified). “However, a claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” Id. (cleaned up). “[O]rdinarily in process claims steps taken concurrently are the equivalent of steps taken successively.” In re White, 39 F.2d 974, 975 (CCPA 1930); see also Cybersettle, 243 F. App’x. at 609 (finding “the step of calculating the differences between demands and offers can occur concurrently with the [next enumerated step of] receipt of multiple demands and offers” and “the testing step of ‘determining whether any of the differences fall within the predetermined settlement range’ may occur concurrently with the receipt and comparison of the bids” (citation modified)). This is especially true here, given that the recitations at issue are functional language in an apparatus (system) claim. We further agree with Petitioner that the ’328 patent discloses such concurrent performance of these steps: Either concurrent with or subsequent to the identification of road signs 30 and generation of asset management database 24, the computer processor 22 evaluates that portion 32 of each video frame or image that depicts a road sign 30 to determine a set of color values 40, 42 for each of a plurality of colors on the road sign 32. A retroreflectivity value is generated for each color portion 34, 36 on each frame of the tagged videostream 20 containing the road sign 30 that represents a different color value 40, 42. Ex. 1001, 5:52–60. Thus, the ’328 patent discloses concurrently detecting objects of interest (road signs) and determining whether the object of interest has a particular color value. slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner is correct to the extent that it need not show that “the features of [Schofield] may be bodily incorporated into the structure of [Gallagher],” but Petitioner must prove that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.” Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381. For claim 9, Petitioner proposes to modify Gallagher’s system to use “Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within a field of view” in Gallagher’s system. Pet. 23. Thus, Petitioner’s combination does not require the combination of Gallagher’s and Schofield’s sensors into a single system, and Patent Owner’s “sensor fusion” argument is inapposite. See Tr. 48:8–49:6 (Patent Owner’s counsel confirming that the problem of “sensor fusion” stems from combining disparate sensors in a single system). As noted above, Schofield teaches considering the relative location of the light source in determining whether the light source is from headlights or taillights (that is, an object of interest). See Ex. 1006, 9:26–35. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use this teaching in Gallagher’s device to help distinguish between road markers that are arranged side-by-side and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77 (“[An ordinarily skilled artisan] would have seen Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within the field of view as advantageous because it would have allowed Gallagher’s computer to associate the measured reflectance level with the appropriate road marker.”), 79 (“[I]mplementing this determination would have required [an ordinarily skilled artisan] to implement only conventional techniques of image processing (identifying a location of a particular pixel within an array), which was well known by [an ordinarily skilled artisan], to predictably yield the result of the location within a field of view indicating an intensity value associated with a road marker. Given that Schofield and Gallagher disclose similar types of arrays, this combination would have merely required the use of Schofield’s known technique to improve Gallagher’s similar device in the same way.”).” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther
“The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 21. 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. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,328 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,328 - Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00748 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. 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. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89). Even considering Petitioner’s new theory, we find it unpersuasive because Petitioner does not explain adequately how the “determining a luminance value” recitation is met. Per Petitioner, Gallagher measures the coefficient of luminous intensity, but Petitioner does not identify a “luminance value” as recited in claim 15. Dr. Papanikolopoulos testifies that the coefficient of luminous intensity is not a luminance value: “As is well established, coefficient of luminous intensity—which is what Gallagher calculates—is a measurement of retroreflectivity (usually expressed in units of candelas, or millicandelas, per lux per square meter, i.e., cd/lx/m2), not luminance (usually expressed in candelas per square meter, i.e., cd/m2). Ex. 2023 ¶ 91. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does not contest this testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1030 ¶ 35. Thus, Petitioner’s new theory is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,335,255 - Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01110 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. 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. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,335,255 - Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00633 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho; claims 2–6 and 16–18 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Brown’s adapter tube 23 (i.e., the extended portion) does not extend radially from a longitudinal axis of valve assembly 13 (i.e., the toilet fill valve). Ex. 1021, Fig. 1. Mr. Jobin testifies that a POSITA would not be motivated to move adapter tube 23 from a vertical position to a radial position because “a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar system.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 251; see Ex. 1021, 1:9–62. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Petitioner’s analysis and Dr. Cameron’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed modification to Brown. For example, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how such a modification would result in a more compact toilet fill valve system that could be adapted to fit in more toilet tank designs. Further, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Cameron sufficiently address Mr. Jobin’s testimony regarding Brown’s desire for a quieter toilet. See Pet. Reply 23; Ex. 1036 ¶ 84. Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is unpatentable over Brown and Ho.” slip op. at 35
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Patent Owner argues that the ’993 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 68; PO Sur-reply 28–30. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. Ex. 1012, 47, ¶ 8 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1001, 2:28–39. As can be seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288.” slip op. at 48
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“1. Analysis of Claims 1–18 Schuster is available as prior art if the ’993 patent is only entitled to its January 27, 2014, filing date and not entitled to claim priority to earlier filing dates of the parent applications. On its face, the ’993 patent claims priority to a number of earlier parent applications, including Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application) filed May 25, 2010, and the Application code 63. Petitioner contends that the ’993 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the earlier parent applications, and, thus, Schuster, a parent application of the ’993 patent, is available as prior art.15 Pet. 91–92. Petitioner alleges that the earlier parent applications, specifically Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application), do not provide written description support for the ’993 patent’s claim term “water flow regulator.” According to Petitioner, “water flow regulator” encompasses both adjustable devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., valves) and fixed devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., restrictors). Pet. 15. Petitioner contends that the ’904 Application does not provide support for water flow restrictors and, thus, does not provide support for the broader claim term water flow regulators. Id. at 14–15, 91–92. Petitioner argues that only adjustable water flow devices (i.e., valves) are supported by the ’904 Application. Id. Petitioner, thus, asserts that earliest effective filing date of the ’993 patent’s claims is the filing date of its application, January 27, 2014. Id. at 92. To be entitled to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120 each application in the priority chain must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Hollmer v. 14 The parties do not dispute that the ’993 patent and the earlier parent applications, including the ’904 Application and the ’606 Application, have the same pertinent portions of their specifications. See PO Resp. 71, n.16; Ex. 1004 ¶ 324. 15 Schuster issued on January 31, 2012, from Application No. 12/786,904, filed on May 25, 2010. Ex. 1029, code (21), (22), (45). Schuster, thus, issued more than one year prior to January 27, 2014.” slip op. at 46
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“2. Analysis of Claims 19 and 20 Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and additionally recites, “wherein the waterflow regulator comprises an adjustable water flow regulator that is configured to adjust the flow rate of the second portion of the water based at least in part on a setting of the adjustable water flow regulator.” Ex. 1001, 12:16–20. Claim 20 depends from claim 14 and recites the same additional limitation. Id. at 12:21–24. Claims 19 and 20, thus, require the water flow regulator to be an adjustable water flow regulator. Petitioner indicates that the earlier parent applications provide written description support for an adjustable water flow regulator. Pet. 91 (“[T]he ’904 application specification makes it clear that the adjustability of the bowl fill valve is a desirable and essential feature of the invention”); PO Surreply 28. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable over Schuster.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 9,139,993 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,139,993 - Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Exelixis Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00210 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we find that on the current record Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Brown, Kubo, and Remington would inherently result in less than 200 ppm impurity and Petitioner has not shown that it has a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the obviousness ground.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Here, there is no dispute that the ’349 patent and Wilson, which issued from a patent application from which priority was claimed for the ’349 patent, share the identical disclosure of a pharmaceutical composition comprising Compound IA or IB; one or more fillers; one or more disintegrants; one or more glidants; and one or more lubricants. In this embodiment, the filler comprises microcrystalline cellulose. In this embodiment, the disintegrant comprises croscarmellose sodium. In this embodiment, the disintegrant comprises croscarmellose sodium and sodium starch glycolate. In this embodiment, the glidant comprises fumed silica. In this embodiment, the lubricant comprises stearic acid. Ex. 1001, 21:1–12; Ex. 1002, 20:51–62. There is express ipsis verbis disclosure of the elements recited in claim 1 of the ’349 patent.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“1. Reason to reduce contaminant levels We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner identifies no teaching in the prior art providing any reason to reduce levels of 6,7-dimethoxy-quinoline-4-ol specifically. And while Brown does teach a desire to form “substantially pure” compounds, Brown focuses on “at least about 90 wt.%” of the compound, then lists specifically “about 90, about 91, about 92, about 93, about 94, about 95, about 96, about 97, about 98, about 99 and about 100% wt. %.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 97. This permits a range of concentration for contaminants from about 0 to 10%.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“to modify Brown’s process with Kubo to eliminate the added step. See, e.g., Id. ¶ 73. But even with that combination, Dr. Dichtel states only that a “POSA would have expected there to be a decrease in the amount of 6,7- dimethoxy-quinoline-4-ol at the end of cabozantinib (L)-malate’s synthesis that was attributable to hydrolytic degradation of the 4- (nitrophenoxy)quinoline intermediate by avoiding its use in the synthesis.” Id. ¶ 78. That is not, however, the standard for inherency. It must be the necessary result, not a possible expected result. The Federal Circuit in Par explained that: 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. 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 questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.” slip op. at 28
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,349 - Deere & Company v. David’S Dozer V-Loc System, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01442 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–4 unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition and the Preliminary Response (including any other authorized submissions) “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.”” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art differs from that of Petitioner, primarily because Patent Owner contends that such a person of ordinary skill would have a certain degree of experience relating specifically to skid steers, or similar machinery, and their hydraulic systems. See Prelim. Resp. 8–10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 31). Insofar as we understand the significance of Patent Owner’s concerns about the differences between the parties’ proposals, these differences do not bear upon the issues addressed herein. Accordingly, for the purposes of the present Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, with regard to the issues addressed in this Decision, Petitioner’s proposed description of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill indicated by the ’300 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner made the deliberate choice to claim broadly,” eschewing “structural limitations that would have expressly or implicitly required the hydraulic of Element [1.4] to differ from the hydraulic of Element [1.5].” Reply 7. Further, Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner chose to generically recite ‘a hydraulic’ in each of Elements [1.4] and [1.5] without distinguishing labels, identifiers, or qualifiers.” Id. To the contrary, the two recited “hydraulic[s]” are distinguished by the language surrounding and modifying each instance in the method of claim 1. Indeed, the recitations of distinct operations performed by each “hydraulic,” in the claimed method, further support the understanding these are distinct and different structures. Additionally, as Patent Owner contends (see Prelim. Resp. 16), each instance of “hydraulic” is introduced with the indefinite article “a” — a signal that the two instances of “a hydraulic” do not refer to the same structure. See Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct components’ of the patented invention.”) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a “return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As Patent Owner argues, Petitioner’s proposed combination of Funk and Lewis “would interfere with the intended operation of the Funk control system to move the lift arms up and down in response to inter alia changes in the height signal.” Prelim. Resp. 20. This scenario is similar to that in Tec Air, 192 F.3d at 1356, which involved a claimed injection-molding technique that used screw-threaded adjustable plugs accessed from the inner, cavity-facing, side of the mold. The proposed combination included a prior art reference disclosing adjustment members accessed from the opposite, outer, side of the mold, and having a non-threaded smooth tip that extended through the mold and into the cavity. Id. at 1360. The Federal Circuit held that the prior art reference was properly determined to teach away from the claimed invention, because “no screw driver would be able to turn the smooth-headed screws from the cavity-side of the mold,” hence the proposed “combination would be inoperable for its intended purpose.” Id. Likewise, the proposed combination in the present matter teaches away from the subject matter of claim 1, because it would “immobilize [Funk’s] main arm,” and its associated hydraulic cylinder 18, “leaving just ‘one’ of Funk’s two adjustment mechanisms — blade tilt — available for grade control” (Pet. 10), thereby decreasing the system’s accuracy (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 113– 14) and negating the very technique that Funk relies upon to achieve its stated goal. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 7 (“[O]ne object of the present invention is to provide an automatic leveling control system that is sufficiently accurate for preparing the ground prior to the construction of concrete floors and foundations.”)” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Markman · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,533,300
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.