- PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00842 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–29 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and granted EndyMed’s motion to join the ’386 IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the foregoing reasons, the underlying premise of Serendia’s arguments here and in the ’386 IPR remains substantially the same. Thus, for the same reasons discussed in our decision instituting the ’386 IPR, we find that EndyMed demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of challenged claims 1–29 of the ’836 patent. See ’386 IPR, Paper 18. That is not to say, however, that Serendia may not ultimately persuade us at trial of the deficiency of EndyMed’s showing based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“evidences nonobviousness for four different patents. In this situation, a presumption of nexus is appropriate only if patent owner demonstrates that the claims of all four patents “generally cover the same invention.” See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377 (“Where a product embodies claims from two patents, a presumption of nexus can be appropriate only if the claims of both patents generally cover the same invention.”). “The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.” Id. at 1378 (citation omitted). “In such situations, the patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, Serendia does not demonstrate that the four different patents cover the same invention. See Prelim. Resp. 59–74. Indeed, Serendia does not address U.S. Patents 9,775,774, 9,320,536, and 10,869,812 at all. See id. That Serendia separately sought patent protection for each of these four patents suggests that these patents do not generally cover the same invention. Cf Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378 (“The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.”). We made a similar determination in the ’386 IPR. See, e.g., ’386 IPR, Paper 18 at 38 (“Patent Owner fails to set forth which patents ‘generally cover’ the Sylfirm X device.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“We disagree with Serendia. EndyMed need not justify its delay where, as here, EndyMed satisfies the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely. Serendia also argues that joinder should be denied due to duplicative efforts with the parallel Delaware litigation, which involves the same parties and patent as here. See PO Opp. 3–4. That argument fails for the simple reason that EndyMed submits a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the Delaware litigation the same grounds that are asserted in the petition here or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised here. See Pet. Reply 1–2. A Sotera stipulation mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts, and we decline to discretionarily decline institution where a petitioner makes such a stipulation. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7–8. Thus, we will not discretionarily deny the petition or motion for joinder on the basis of the parallel Delaware litigation.8” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,480,836 - PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-01108 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10–15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 under § 103 and granted BRP’s motion to join the Foil Boarding IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage of the proceeding and based on our preliminary review, we find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims for the same reasons discussed in our Decision on Institution in the Foil Boarding IPR. Granting the Petition and joining Petitioner to the Foil Boarding IPR will provide us with the opportunity to more fully consider Patent Owner’s arguments—first raised in response to the petition in the Foil Boarding IPR—in the context in which they were first raised. Those common arguments will be fully considered in the Foil Boarding IPR, with the benefit of a complete record.8 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’044 patent. We therefore grant the Petition, and institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“challenges the same claims on the same grounds using the same prior art, Kyocera factor (2) favors joinder. See Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4. Indeed, the Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016- 00962, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016). Moreover, because the issues to be decided are the same and Petitioner avers that it will take an “understudy” role to Foil Boarding in the Foil Boarding IPR by consolidating all filings, refraining from advancing new arguments, binding itself to any discovery agreements, and limiting its deposition time to the time already allotted, Kyocera factors (3) and (4) also favor joinder. See Mot. 4–6; Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4. For the reasons explained above, we find that joining Petitioner to the Foil Boarding IPR is appropriate under the present circumstances. We, therefore, grant Petitioner’s Motion.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 9,359,044 - PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-01107 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, and 15 under § 103 and granted BRP’s motion to join IPR2024-00085.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage of the proceeding and based on our preliminary review, we find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims for the same reasons discussed in our Decision on Institution in the Foil Boarding IPR. Granting the Petition and joining Petitioner to the Foil Boarding IPR will provide us with the opportunity to more fully consider Patent Owner’s arguments—first raised in response to the petition in the Foil Boarding IPR—in the context in which they were first raised. Those common arguments will be fully considered in the Foil Boarding IPR, with the benefit of a complete record.8 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’659 patent. We therefore grant the Petition, and institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s Motion. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Because the Petition challenges the same claims on the same grounds using the same prior art, Kyocera factor (2) favors joinder. See Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4. Indeed, the Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016- 00962, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016). Moreover, because the issues to be decided are the same and Petitioner avers that it will take an “understudy” role to Foil Boarding in the Foil Boarding IPR by consolidating all filings, refraining from advancing new arguments, binding itself to any discovery agreements, and limiting its deposition time to the time already allotted, Kyocera factors (3) and (4) also favor joinder. See Mot. 4–6; Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4. For the reasons explained above, we find that joining Petitioner to the Foil Boarding IPR is appropriate under the present circumstances. We, therefore, grant Petitioner’s Motion.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 9,586,659 - Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00768 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Eng Soon and Constantin; claims 4, 6, and 7 were not shown unpatentable over Eng Soon, Constantin, and Olson because the asserted combinations were not adequately …
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Smith, on the other hand, testifies that Constantin does not disclose an actuator having a receptacle and “Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s argument that Constantin teaches that one could switch the location of stud 15 and orifice 16 is not supported.” Ex. 2040 ¶¶ 65–66. Mr. Smith further testifies that “Constantin does not describe the location of stud 15 and orifice 16 as a ‘preferred embodiment.’ . . . Constantin’s disclosure does not disclose or suggest that stud 15 could be switched for orifice 16 on the other shutter blade.” Id. ¶ 68. Having considered Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s competing evidence and argument, we agree with Patent Owner and credit Mr. Smith’s testimony. Specifically, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Constantin teaches, discloses, or suggests its orifice as being attached to its actuator, as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 49. Petitioner’s assertion is premised on a misapprehension of Constantin’s claim 5.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Having established that Constantin does not teach, disclose, or suggest an orifice attached to its actuator, we also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s argument that a POSITA would have modified Eng Soon’s structure so as “to fix the pin on the bottom of the gate as taught by Constantin.” Pet. 54 (emphasis added). Because Petitioner has not shown Constantin teaches or suggests such structure and has failed to provide adequate explanation for why one would have modified Constantin, Petitioner’s reasoning is insufficient.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The Board may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing confidential information.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). Upon considering the content of the Exhibits, including those redacted versions, and Petitioner’s representations as to the confidentiality of the information, we determine that Petitioner has shown good cause for sealing Exhibit 1016 in its entirety and the redacted portions of the Exhibits 2010, 2012, 2013, 2020–2024, 2029, 2032, 2033, 2039, and 2044, which redacted versions have been submitted as Exhibits 1025–1037. Id. at ii. slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,585,341 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,585,341 - Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00127 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed prior-art modifications lacked adequate support and rational underpinning.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The basis of disagreement boils down to an evaluation of a skilled artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’079 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’079 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively).” Id. at 2:34–39. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We observe that Patent Owner relies on content of the ’079 patent at column 11, lines 31–34 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’079 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’079 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:31–34. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’079 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’079 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that are “integrally joined to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently discloses that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally. Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja also inadequately explain why combination of Luthi ’202’s teachings with those of either Luthi ’800 or Chan would result in the above-noted “central cavity” as a part of the directional element of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. Although Luthi ’800 and Chan may show spaces or cavities in components of their shoes, there appear substantial differences in the designs of those shoes, and in particular the cushioning aspects, as compared with Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. We credit Dr. Hinrichs’s and Dr. Luthi’s testimony that the presence of such a cavity as shown in Luthi ’800 and Chan would prove detrimental to the medial-lateral stability of Luthi ’202’s shoe, and specifically the directional element of such a shoe that is depicted in Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 42; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 11–13. To that end, we also find inadequate Petitioner’s general position that combining the teachings of Luthi ’202, Luthi ’800, and Chan would result simply in a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art . . .” Pet. 35. We are not persuaded that any such combination would yield the “predictable results” advanced by Petitioner, or that “well within the knowledge and skill” of an artisan cited by Petitioner constitutes rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (An assertion of unpatentability based on “obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,339,079 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,339,079 - Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00125 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 20–32 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed modifications to Luthi ’202 were unsupported and relied on hindsight.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’285 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:19–21. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’285 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively.” Id. at 2:28– 31. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. In crediting Dr. Hinrichs’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art we observe that, although Petitioner makes reference to the testimony of its declarant Mr. Ganaja (see Pet. 6 (citing 1002 ¶¶ 39–43)), Mr. Ganaja makes no evaluation of his own in that testimony in connection with the level of ordinary skill. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“column 11, lines 23–26 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’285 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’285 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:23–26. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” or “leaf spring element” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’285 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’285 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction. Indeed, our above-noted understanding is also consistent with other embodiments described in the ’285 patent. For instance, embodiments depicted in Figures 13–16 show elements 23 extending in a forward direction with respect to the sole. The elements 23 of those figures are described as “leaf spring elements.” Id. at 10:15–50. Moreover, the ‘285 patent makes explicit that those leaf spring elements “are either forwardly or rearwardly directed.” Id. at 10:49–50. Patent Owner’s position that the claimed “leaf springs” or “leaf spring elements” require a parallel component extending in the rearward direction is inconsistent with these particular figures and the accompanying description in the ’285 patent. To that end, Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the meaning of the term “leaf spring” encompasses only a parallel component in the rearward direction, yet the ’285 patent clearly provides that leaf springs may also have components that extend in the forward direction. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we again conclude that “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” mean “a flexible member that deflects and provides a restoring force with an orthogonal and a parallel component in response to a load applied to the sole.” We discern that it is unnecessary to construe expressly any other claim term of the ’285 patent. See 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,345,285 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,345,285 - Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation / Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. et al. v. Irwin Industrial Tool CompanyRehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01462 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted trial on claims 21–30 under Ground 2, as obvious over Redford, alongside the grounds previously instituted.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Specifically, Petitioner acknowledges that the Petition (Paper 2, “Petition”) included a “typo[graphical error] in the heading [that] might have caused the Board to overlook claims 21–30 in Ground 2 of the Petition.” Id. at 2–3; Paper 2, 26 (listing claims 1–5, 14–20, and 32–34 in the heading of Ground 2 of the Petition). Upon reviewing the record before us, we agree with Petitioner that the typographical error in the Petition caused us to “overlook the fact that claims 21–30 were included in Ground 2 of the Petition.” Req. Reh’g 2. Furthermore, based on our review of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we are also persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of claims 21–30 under Ground 2, in addition to claims 1–5, 14–20, and 32–34, as obvious over Redford. See Paper 2, 4, 26–31; see also Paper 7, 19–20 (instituting review of claims 1–5, 14–20, and 32–34 under Ground 2 in the Decision).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Upon reviewing the record before us, we agree with Petitioner that the typographical error in the Petition caused us to “overlook the fact that claims 21–30 were included in Ground 2 of the Petition.” Req. Reh’g 2. Furthermore, based on our review of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we are also persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of claims 21–30 under Ground 2, in addition to claims 1–5, 14–20, and 32–34, as obvious over Redford. See Paper 2, 4, 26–31; see also Paper 7, 19–20 (instituting review of claims 1–5, 14–20, and 32–34 under Ground 2 in the Decision).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,579,555 - Hewlett-Packard Company v. Yyz LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · CBM2015-00050 · APJ Richard E Rice · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted adverse judgment based on Patent Owner’s abandonment and cancelled claims 51, 52, and 55–57 of U.S. Patent No. 7,603,674 B2.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for such an adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. We find that Patent Owner’s actions and admissions, as set forth in the Motion, constitute abandonment of these CBM Proceedings, and we determine based on such abandonment that Patent Owner has requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in both proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,603,674 - Hewlett-Packard Company v. Yyz LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · CBM2015-00049 · APJ Richard E Rice · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted adverse judgment based on Patent Owner’s abandonment and ordered claims 22–23, 27–29 of the ’749 patent and claims 51–52, 55–57 of the ’674 patent cancelled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for such an adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. We find that Patent Owner’s actions and admissions, as set forth in the Motion, constitute abandonment of these CBM Proceedings, and we determine based on such abandonment that Patent Owner has requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in both proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,062,749 - Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00483 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Provino; claims 2–5 and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Provino with Kosiur and Xu, respectively.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Apple Incorporated (“Petitioner”) also filed a Petition (Paper 2) seeking an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’274 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 in Case IPR2014- 00483 (“’483 IPR”). Noting that Microsoft Corporation’s Petition and Apple Incorporated’s Petition were substantially identical in material aspects, the Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18, and joined IPR2014-00483 with IPR2014-00403 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). See ’483IPR, Paper 11, 6–9.2 Thereafter, pursuant to a settlement agreement, the present proceeding was terminated with respect to Microsoft Corporation only. Paper 38.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“proceeding somehow limits the claims here that Patent Owner otherwise could have moved to amend under a broadest reasonable construction, Patent Owner’s arguments were not “unambiguous,” and do not “call for the application of prosecution history disclaimer.” See PO Resp. 17–18. There was no “express disclaimer,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, or “unambiguous disavowal[],” Grober, 686 F.3d at 1341.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As the latter two sentences show, the ’274 patent Specification describes placing field hopping data (i.e., an address hopping technique, see id. at 46:64–47:11), into a payload portion of a data packet. The Specification does not tie “tunneled” packets into a specific requirement that requires a change in formatting––above and apart from any protocol formatting or structural change that may happen to, or does, occur by placing one type of data field (header) into another type of data field (payload). After discussing the insertion of the field hopping data into the payload portion, the Specification then describes that these “modified message packets preferably conform to the UDP protocol,” or “[a]lternatively . . . can conform to the TCP/IP protocol or the ICPM protocol.” Id. at 50:30–35. In other words, if there is a change in a protocol in these disclosed examples––for example, from one protocol format to a UDP protocol format––any change appears to come in preferred embodiments and after the packets have been modified (i.e., tunneled). Accordingly, based on the foregoing discussion, we modify our construction as set forth in the Institution Decision, such that “tunnel packeting” means “placing data or information from one field, such as a header, into another packet field, such as a payload, wherein the two fields normally have different structures or formats, or placing data structured in one format within the format of another protocol.”” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“In any event, to the extent it is material, the ’274 patent Specification employs the term “user’s computer” in a “conventional scheme . . . shown in FIG 25. A user’s computer 2501 includes a client application 2504 (for example a web browser) . . . .” Ex. 1001, 38:61–63. Although Patent Owner refers to this “conventional” computer as “another embodiment,” the ’274 patent Specification disparages the “conventional architecture” that employs a user’s computer, because it is not secure enough. See Ex. 1001, 39:4–13; PO Resp. 21. In general, the ’274 patent Specification states that “[t]he present invention” involves a “client computer” with a “client application” that “communicates with a server.” See Ex. 1001, 7:40–44. This description of “[t]he present invention” does not mention a “user’s computer.” Therefore, the ’274 patent Specification does not repeatedly treat a “client computer” and a “user’s computer” as the same. The broadest reasonable construction of a client computer is a computer associated with a client.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,987,274 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,987,274
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.