• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00115 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

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

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 11,674,517 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,674,517
• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00096 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Schima and Akamatsu; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Fed. R. Evid. 702 serves “a ‘gatekeeping role,’ the objective of which is to ensure that expert testimony admitted into evidence is both reliable and relevant.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). There is no question that the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby is relevant to the asserted motivation to combine and reliable, only whether it becomes “not relevant” or “unreliable,” in light of limited scope upon which grounds of unpatentability may be based under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), because the testimony is based on, or supported by, knowledge of physical devices and publications discussing physical devices. Patent Owner directs us to no support for the notion that an expert’s testimony in an inter partes review must be limited to only the prior art relied upon as grounds for unpatentability and may not take into account any knowledge of, or publications concerning, other “physical devices” that would have been known to a person of ordinary skill at the relevant time. See generally Mot.25 In sum, we find that Patent Owner has 25 Patent Owner improperly asserts for the first time in its Reply in support of the Motion that “Petitioner in this case is improperly relying on non-prior art evidence.” Mot. Reply 3. This argument was not made in the Motion, and Patent Owner fails to identify what “non-prior art evidence” it seeks to exclude. We recognize that Petitioner appears to raise the argument that “non-prior art evidence” may be relied upon by an expert, but Petitioner also fails to identify what evidence it is referring to and that argument was not responsive to any issue Patent Owner raised in the Motion. See Mot. Resp. 5. To the extent the Parties intend “non-prior art evidence” to refer to the testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby, we view the issue as pertaining to the weight afforded that testimony, in light of the supporting evidence relied upon, rather than one of admissibility. for the exclusion of evidence in this proceeding and deny the Motion.” slip op. at 83

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “D. Claim Construction In this proceeding we construe claims using the same claim” slip op. at 20

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

    “5. Rationale in Support of Asserted Combination Petitioner shows, and there is no dispute, that Bourque and Wampler” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 11,351,356 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,351,356
• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00114 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under §103; claim 20 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyDenied

    “IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Wieselthaler’s Declaration (Exhibit 1041), portions of Mr. Crosby’s Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1042), portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Wieselthaler (Exhibit 2028), and the exhibits “upon which that testimony is based” (Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050). Mot. 1. According to Patent Owner, the Motion was made “to preserve objections previously made in the record.” Id. (citations omitted). Patent Owner did not timely move to strike any of the evidence at issue as being outside the scope of reply evidence. Patent Owner asserts that because an inter partes review must be based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications (citing 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), the testimony of Mr. Crosby and Dr. Wieselthaler concerning “various physical devices allegedly known” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is inadmissible, along with all of the exhibits (consisting of printed materials such a journal abstracts, press releases, and papers) related to those physical devices. Id. at 3–4; see also Mot. Reply 1–4 (arguing that “devices that Petitioner’s witnesses assert were the basis of an inter partes review”). According to Patent Owner, Dr. Wieselthaler was unable to “link two of these physical devices to the printed prior art asserted in this [inter partes review], but those attempts fell apart during his cross examination.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner further reasons that because the evidence “cannot be the basis” of an inter partes review, it “has no tendency to make any fact of consequence in this trial more or less probable,” “is irrelevant and not admissible,” “presents substantial danger of confusing the issues, causing undue delay, and wasting time in this trial,” and “are not ‘based on sufficient facts[,] the product of reliable principles and methods[, or] ‘a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.’” Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401–403, 702) (modification in original). With regard to Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Patent Owner identifies no plausible legal theory for their inadmissibility based on the contention that they discuss physical devices. See Mot. Resp. 3. We also agree with Petitioner that the exhibits are not “the basis for any ground” asserted in this proceeding, and may be properly relied upon by Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby as support for their rebuttal testimony directed to Patent Owner’s arguments disputing Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine the prior art relied upon in the instituted grounds. See id. at 3–4. In regard to the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and” slip op. at 77

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “1. “magneto coupling” Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a second magnetic device . . . positioned to magnetically drive rotation of the magnetically driven rotor via a magneto coupling with the first magnetic device.” Ex. 1001, 5:34–37. Claim 11 recites, in relevant part, “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor so as to magnetically drive rotation of the magnetically driven rotor relative to the one or more walls via a magneto coupling with the first magnetic device.” Id. at 6:42–48. Petitioner argues that “magneto coupling” means “a transfer of torque from one rotating permanent magnetic component to another rotating permanent magnetic component via a magnetic field.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–87). According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with the ’879 patent, which describes “a coupling between two rotating ‘bar magnets’—a drive wheel rotates one bar magnet which causes another bar magnet (connected to a rotor) to rotate.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–55 (analyzing Ex. 1001, 2:28–52, 4:44–64, Fig. 2)). Patent Owner argues that “magneto coupling” should be afforded “its plain and ordinary meaning, which would encompass a magnetic coupling through both rotating magnets and the use of a rotating magnetic Owner directs us to the testimony of Mr. Leschinsky, who explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’879 patent to use “magneto coupling” to generally describe “a way to couple the rotor to a drive element while sealing the two from one another and avoiding use of a direct mechanical coupling.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 67. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner provides no recognizable basis for limiting the plain meaning of magnetic coupling to one type of magnet and excluding another type of magnet.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc., v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989–992 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not provide a sufficient basis for limiting the plain meaning of “magneto coupling.” That the ’879 patent describes embodiments using bar magnets does not serve to require the use of permanent magnets for the recited “magneto coupling.” See Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”)). Moreover, the claim language here is not so limited. 13 Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on Wampler and Bourque depend on the disclosure only of electromagnetic drives in each reference, implying that “Petitioner does not believe its own proposed narrower construction.” PO Resp. 6; see also Pet. 8 (Petitioner alleging that in the Parallel Proceeding Patent Owner “conflates ‘magneto coupling’ . . . with a stator drive using a stationary electromagnet, instead of a rotating magnet, to rotate the rotor magnet,” and asserting that as the basis for Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler and Bourque as teaching a “magneto coupling” in this proceeding (citing Ex. 1019, 7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87)).” slip op. at 24

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

    “reasons discussed above. See supra Section III.D.3. Accordingly, because Petitioner’s contentions are premised on an unsupported claim construction that we reject, Petitioner fails to show how Wampler teaches or suggests “a magnetically driven rotor . . . axially adjacent to a first magnet device,” as required by claims 1 and 11, as well as by claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14– 16, and 18–20, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 11. In its Reply, Petitioner suggests that “[u]nder [Patent Owner’s] construction from the [Patent Owner Response], Wampler also teaches or suggests this limitation,” because Patent Owner “concedes [that] ‘axially adjacent’ components ‘have” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 11,572,879 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,572,879
• Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,103,105
• Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,139,993
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00914 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 105 and 106 are unpatentable as obvious over Heller and Mastrototaro; Abbott did not prove claims 49, 80, 81, 85, or 86 unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “on the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to disclose the predictive relationship limitation of claim 49 not taught by Heller are legally deficient. Resp. 28–38. We agree in that Petitioner’s contentions in the Petition amount to no more than a conclusory assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known” the predictive relationship limitation. See Pet. 38–39. Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition are divorced from any analysis of Heller and fail to articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Heller to teach the predictive relationship in light of what was purportedly known more generally in the art. Merely asserting that a particular limitation was “known in the art” does not constitute a legally sufficient basis for establishing obviousness. See, e.g., Deere, 383 U.S. at 17–18. While Petitioner purports to identify multiple references that teach a predictive relationship, Petitioner circumvents a legally sufficient obviousness analysis by choosing not to assert any of the references in combination with Heller, but to instead argue they all collectively show that “predictive relationships” were broadly known in the art. See Pet. 28–33. Rather than establish some broad understanding by persons of ordinary skill in the art concerning the predictive relationship limitation, Petitioner’s arguments make clear that each reference uniquely addressed the relationship between a particular sensor and the in vivo performance of the sensor. For example, Petitioner asserts Gross teaches a sensor for which “the pre-insertion, factory-determined in vitro performance curve and” slip op. at 32

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

    “level in Gross is a “measure of sensor current, not ‘analyte concentration’ is contrary to the express disclosure of Gross. Gross expressly discloses a calibration method that requires, after insertion the in vivo measurement of a saturation level G1 “which can be measured by the sensor and which is of importance for the calibration method.” Ex. 1004, 13:3–18 (further stating that a “voltage V1 (FIG. 4C) applied at time t1 gives a current I1, (FIG. 4B) which corresponds to the saturation level G1 (FIG. 4A) of the enzyme”). Gross explains that “the predetermined stimulus is adapted to saturate the sensor such that the first signal is a maximum signal,” and “[w]hen a sensor is such that it can be saturated by a sufficiently large stimulus, it can be preferable to use this phenomenon in calibrating the sensor as it enables a reproducible first predetermined stimulus, i.e. a saturation stimulus to be provided in all cases, thereby removing uncertainty as to whether the means for providing a predetermined stimulus will in fact achieve exactly the right level of uncertainty.” Id. at 3:17–26.” slip op. at 45

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness. 5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. However, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pers. Web Tech., LLC, v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In light of the foregoing multiple critical misrepresentations, Petitioner’s MTE is denied regarding sufficiency of Dr. Baura’s qualifications because Petitioner did not timely object to the evidence on the basis asserted in the MTE, fails to refute Patent Owner’s showing that Dr. Baura is sufficiently qualified (see MTE Opp. 3–7; Ex. 2010 ¶ 30), and abandons its argument in its Reply to the MTE.” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 11,000,213 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,000,213
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00913 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Heller; the evidence does not establish claims 4–6, 8, or 23–26 unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In opposition, Patent Owner first argues, and we agree, that Petitioner failed to timely object to Dr. Laura’s declaration with sufficient particularity. MTE Opp. 1–3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)). Our Rule requires that an “objection must identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)). Petitioner’s objection to Dr. Baura’s testimony identifies hundreds of paragraphs from her declaration followed by an objection stating her “testimony is based on insufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and does not reliably apply the appropriate principles and methods to the fact of the case.” Paper 25, 2. Petitioner’s boilerplate objection is woefully insufficient to show that Petitioner objected with sufficiently particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental information, as our Rule requires. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments in the MTE are no more than a “transparent attempt to . . . circumvent the word-count limits of its merits briefing by injecting merits arguments in its evidentiary motion.” MTE Opp. 9. In short, Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight to be afforded Dr. Baura’s testimony, not to its admissibility, and are, therefore, an improper basis for seeking the exclusion of hundreds of paragraphs Dr. Baura’s declaration. Accordingly, Petitioner’s MTE is denied.” slip op. at 63

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. Resp. 9. Dr. Baura, in support of Patent Owner, states that she applied Petitioner’s “definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, because,” in her opinion, Petitioner’s “and Dr. Smith’s conclusions are incorrect even under this definition.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 29. Thus, Dr. Baura neither adopts as proper nor refutes Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We find that the ’213 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and the ’213 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 17

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

    “In view of the issues we address below, including how the claimed subject matter is alleged to have been taught or disclosed in the prior art, we determine that it is not otherwise necessary to address the express interpretation of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s anticipation argument is insufficiently supported by Heller or the other evidence Petitioner relies upon. Petitioner directs us to no evidence in Heller expressly addressing a predictive relationship between in vitro and in vivo sensitivity, much less any disclosure in Heller of a particular relationship. Instead, Petitioner seeks to stretch a thin disclosure in Heller that “calibration data may simply be factory-determined calibration measurements” to necessarily mean “prior sensitivity information is derived at least in part from a predictive relationship between an in vitro sensor sensitivity to glucose and an in vivo sensor sensitivity to glucose,” as required by claim 23. Pet. 36; Ex. 1005, 77:14–15. Notably, Dr. Smith does not identify any “predictive relationship” disclosed by Heller. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 148–149. We give little weight to Dr. Smith’s conclusory assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have simply “recognized” Heller’s “factory determined calibration measurements” were necessarily “derived at least in part from a predictive relationship between an in vitro and an in vivo sensor sensitivity to glucose,” particularly where Heller does not expressly preclude in vitro measurements from its “factory determined calibration measurements.” See id. Further, in reply, Petitioner argues again that “(1) Heller discloses that calibration data can ‘simply be factory determined calibration measurements’ . . . and (2) a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that this ‘discloses that factory (in vitro) determined sensitivity adequately predicts in vivo sensitivity.’” Reply 6. From Heller’s disclosure preponderance of the evidence that Heller expressly teaches any predictive relationship, even one in which in vitro and in vivo sensitivity are the same. that calibration data can “simply be factory determined calibration measurements,” Petitioner provides no more than speculation to suggest that there necessarily must be some relationship between in vitro measurements and in vivo measurements. See Reply 6–8. Because Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Heller discloses all of the limitations of clam 23, we determine Petitioner has not shown that Heller anticipates claim 23.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,000,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,000,213
• Medtronic, Inc. And Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2022 · IPR2020-01343 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 52 and 53 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ressemann; the other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable because Itou is not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Documents are authenticated by evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a); see Fox Factory v. SRAM, LLC, IPR2016-01876, Paper 59 at 63 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2018) (quoting same). “Authenticity is, therefore, not an especially high hurdle for a party to overcome.” Fox Factory, Paper 59 at 63 (citing United States v. Patterson, 277 F.3d 709, 713 (4th Cir. 2002)). We determine that Exhibit 2024 has been authenticated under the low bar required under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 based on the evidence provided by Petitioner. See Mot. Opp. 2–11. In addition, Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. We note, however, that even if we were to exclude Exhibit 2024, it would not change the outcome or our general analysis of this case.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been either: (1) a medical doctor who would have had “(a) a medical degree; (b) completed a coronary intervention cardiologist;” or (2) an engineer who would have had “(a) an undergraduate degree in engineering, such as mechanical or biomedical engineering; and (b) at least three years of experience designing medical devices, including catheters or catheter-deployable devices.” Pet. 13–14. Additionally, Petitioner contends “[e]xtensive experience and technical training might substitute for education, and advanced degrees might substitute for experience.” Id. at 14. Further, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a medical degree” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “with an engineering degree” may have had access to each other. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 31; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 18–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 5. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as it is undisputed and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the specification of the ’116 patent. 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 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “Petitioner proposes the following constructions: (1) “substantially rigid” as “rigid enough to allow the device to be advanced within the guide catheter,” (2) “side opening” needs no construction and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, (3) “lumen” as “the cavity of a tube,” and (4) “flexural modulus” as “[a] measure of resistance . . . to bending.” 7 Patent Owner argues that Dr. Hillstead does not meet the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because he lacks a four-year undergraduate degree in engineering. PO Resp. 5 n.1 (citing, e.g., Ex. 2137, 462:8–13). As noted above, however, it is undisputed that “[e]xtensive experience and technical training might substitute for education.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not address Dr. Hillstead’s significant professional experience, which we find sufficient to show he is qualified to opine on the issues in this proceeding from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1043 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Hillstead). does not dispute at this stage of the proceeding Petitioner’s proposed construction of these terms. See generally PO Resp. In view of the issues we address below, we determine it is not necessary to address the express interpretation of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Ressemann. Pet. 23–31. Petitioner provides a detailed explanation of how it contends Ressemann discloses each of the limitations of claims 52 and 53. Id. In particular, Petitioner explains how Ressemann’s disclosures of the use of features including guide catheter 160, evacuation sheath assembly 100, intermediate shaft portion 120, distal shaft portion 130, lumen 140, and stent delivery system 194 correspond to the recited methods of claims 52 and 53. Id. Petitioner’s contentions are supported by Dr. Brecker and Dr. Hillstead. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 164–174; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 36–39, 58–62. Patent Owner does not dispute that claims 52 and 53 are anticipated by Ressemann. See generally PO Resp; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. Reply 2 (Petitioner arguing that Patent Owner did not dispute that Ressemann anticipates claims 52 and 53). After reviewing the record, we find Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Ressemann discloses each limitations (Pet. 23–31) as our own findings. Accordingly, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Ressemann anticipates claims 52 and 53 of the ’116 patent.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS RE46,116 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2021 · IPR2020-00713 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–13 and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–7, 16–18, and 22 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the proposed combinations lacked motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “Trademark Office, and such disclaimer “shall thereafter be considered as part of the original patent”). Patent Owner asserts that in light of the Disclaimer, claims 8, 14, 15, 19, and 21 are to be “treated as though they never existed.” PO Resp. 17 n.9 (citations omitted). Patent Owner further argues that we should “not address the disclaimed claims in the Final Written Decision.” Id. (citation omitted). Petitioner does not dispute the effect of the Disclaimer. See Reply 11–13, 18–22 (arguing that the challenged claims not disclaimed are unpatentable). We agree with Patent Owner that we should not address the patentability of claims 8, 14, 15, 19, and 21 in this Decision. See PO Resp. 17 n.9. Rather, we treat claims 8, 14, 15, 19, and 21 as if they never existed. See Gunn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.”). We address the patentability only of the challenged claims not disclaimed. See Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2018-01040, Paper 36, 16 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2020) (“Consistent with other Board decisions in which some, but not all, challenged claims have been disclaimed after institution, we address the patentability only of the remaining claims.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner “disagrees with Petitioner’s definition as it is too generic and does not require design experience.” Id. Patent Owner, however, does not explain why the level of ordinary skill in the art requires experience with designing the components for implantable medical systems, as opposed to experience, in general, with implantable medical systems. Moreover, Petitioner defines the level of ordinary skill in the art in two ways. One way expressly requires design experience. The other is an alternative thereto, and Patent Owner acknowledges education can substitute for experience. We see no meaningful distinction between Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art and that of Patent Owner. Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art finds support in the evidence. The ’112 patent is directed to a mechanism for transferring energy from an external power source to an implantable medical device to transcutaneously charge the battery of the implantable medical device. Ex. 1001, Title, Abstract, 1:31–33, 5:14–47, Fig. 3. Similarly, Torgerson and Barreras ’313 are directed to rechargeable implantable medical devices. Ex. 1005, Title, 1:5–6, Figs. 3–5; Ex. 1010, Title, 1:8–11, Figs. 1, 3–6. In view of the foregoing, the evidence reflects Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which does not differ significantly from Patent Owner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art. Our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art we apply, and we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “As set forth in our Trial Practice Guide9, we generally permit testimony where the declarant’s scientific, technical, or other specialized 9 USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019, https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“TPG”); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, November 2019 knowledge will help the Board understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. TPG 34 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)). Given their education and experience with the charging of implantable medical devices (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–11; Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 3–9), we find Dr. Colvin’s testimony and Dr. Haller’s testimony helpful in deciding factual issues in this proceeding. Moreover, when assigning weight to a declarant’s testimony, we consider the underlying facts or data upon which the testimony is based. TPG 40–41. In our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability, we weigh Dr. Colvin’s testimony and Dr. Haller’s testimony accordingly.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim term “programmable limit” and each of the “means for” limitations in independent claim 18. Pet. 6–15. Patent Owner also proposes a construction for “programmable limit” and disagrees with Petitioner’s proffered construction of this term. PO Resp. 8–15. Patent Owner additionally argues: “The Board can resolve the parties’ dispute in this proceeding without construing ‘programmable limit’ because none of the prior art arguments offered below implicate the meaning of ‘programmable limit.’ The same is true for the means plus function terms.” Id. at 7 (citations and footnote omitted). We agree with Patent Owner that we need not expressly construe the claim term “programmable limit” or the means-plus-function limitations in independent claim 18 to resolve the dispute. For the reasons set forth in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability, we determine that no claim term requires an express construction for us to ascertain whether Petitioner has shown the challenged claims to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 9,821,112 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,821,112
• Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2021 · IPR2020-00678 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish its additional limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Response, Patent Owner proposes a different level, stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., electrical, mechanical, or biomedical engineering) with at least two years of experience with the design of components (e.g., circuitry) for implantable medical devices and associated external devices (e.g., a charging unit).” PO Resp. 3–4 (citing Mihran Decl. ¶¶ 21–22). Patent Owner disagrees with the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner, stating that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience and background with electronics and circuitry, which Petitioner does not even specify.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner adds, however, that “the result here would not be different even if Petitioner’s level of skill were to apply.” Id. (citing Mihran Decl. ¶¶ 23–24). The parties did not further address this issue at trial. See generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. We agree with Patent Owner that our analysis in this case does not turn on which of the parties’ competing definitions of ordinary skill is applied and apply the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, consistent with the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner has not shown why the addition of “actual” to Patent Owner’s construction of “measuring said current” is necessary to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language, and concedes that the application of “actual” has no bearing on our analysis. See Pet. Reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “measuring said current” does not require an express construction, consistent with the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 5–6.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner has not shown why the addition of “actual” to Patent Owner’s construction of “measuring said current” is necessary to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language, and concedes that the application of “actual” has no bearing on our analysis. See Pet. Reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “measuring said current” does not require an express construction, consistent with the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 5–6.” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “See Paper 38. For the reasons below, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Sur-reply arguments based on the Fischell ’260 patent are untimely. In general, a “sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. . . . While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 74 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“TPG”). Moreover, even if timely, we find Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive, as explained below.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,774,069 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,774,069

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.