• Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2021 · PGR2021-00093 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–25 on all petition grounds after finding the § 101 challenge to claim 1 met the institution threshold.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “Fintiv sets forth the factors that we weigh in determining whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution of the post-grant patent review proceeding here under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). See Fintiv, Paper 11, 5–6. These factors are: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. “[T]he Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Because the claims at issue here, in particular claim 1, differ from the March 2015 amended claims of the ’859 patent and the August 2014 amended claims of the ’296 patent (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 46:59–47:34), we are not persuaded that the cited prosecution history equally applies to the claims here. In particular, we note that claim 1, which we discuss in the analysis below, does not recite a first transceiver corresponding to a short-range communication mode and a second transceiver corresponding to a long-range communication mode, and does not specify whether a first or second transceiver perform certain actions recited in the claim. Id. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 19), claim 1 of the ’614 patent more but claim 1 does not specify whether it is long or short range and merely recites it being used to establish a connection for the exchange of information between a mobile device and a payment accepting unit in some of the claimed steps. Id. Thus, considering Becton, Dickinson factors (a) and (d), we are not persuaded that the same or substantially the same arguments concerning § 101 were previously presented to the Office. Because we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments with respect to § 101 were not previously presented to the Office, we need not address part two of the Advanced Bionics framework with respect to those arguments.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A [person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a related/equivalent field and at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in electronic payment systems. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–6). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’614 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 22

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionInstituted

    “Ex. 1001, 46:61–47:34. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the limitations above recite the concept of identifying a merchant and making a purchase from the merchant. In particular, claim 1 recites steps for identifying payment accepting units (i.e., a merchant) — limitations 1.2– 1.7.1. Claim 1 also recites steps for conducting the purchase —limitations 1.7.2–1.11. Based on the current record, we find that identifying a merchant and making a purchase from the merchant is a commercial interaction, a sales activity. It falls within the enumerated “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,891,614
• Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · PGR2021-00084 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any of claims 1–20 was more likely than not unpatentable on the asserted § 112, § 102, or § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”1 After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur- reply and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because Petitioner’s proposed construction improperly attempts to read a particular embodiment described in the ’608 patent into the claims. It is not proper to read limitations from the ’608 patent into the claims: Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. As Mr. Smith points out, the ’608 patent does describe offline- payment operated machine 1500 as an electro-mechanical machine capable of accepting currency (e.g., coins), which is not connected to any networks (e.g., telephone, cellular, or Wi-Fi). Ex. 1005 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1002, 39:39– 45). But, the ’608 patent describes offline-payment operated machine 1500 as merely one example of an offline-payment operated machine in some implementations. The ’608 patent states: FIG. 28A illustrates a block diagram of an offline-payment operated machine 1500 in accordance with some implementations. For example, the offline-payment operated machine 1500 (e.g., a form of the machine 120) is an electro-mechanical machine capable of accepting currency (e.g., coins), which is not connected to any networks (e.g., telephone, cellular, or Wi-Fi). For example, the offline-payment operated machine 1500 is a washer or dryer at a laundromat, a parking meter, a car wash payment kiosk, or other offline-payment operated machine that dispenses goods and/or services. Ex. 1002, 39:38–48 (emphases added). The ’608 patent emphasizes that offline-payment operated machine 1500 is merely an example. Id. at 39:52– 56 (“The components of the offline-payment operated machine 1500 in FIG. 28A are examples and one of skill in the art will appreciate that various” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A [person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)], as of the date of the alleged invention, would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, or a related/equivalent field and at least three years of work experience in electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or telecommunication solutions. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’608 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), “[t]he specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same . . . .” To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must reasonably convey to skilled artisans that the patentee possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The requirement under § 112 does not demand that the specification recite the claimed invention verbatim. Id. at 1352 (citations omitted). The “claimed subject matter need not be described in haec verba in the specification in order for that specification to satisfy the description requirement.” In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (CCPA 1973). “Original claims are part of the original specification and in many cases will satisfy the written description requirement.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner, itself, indicates that the specification of the ’608 patent discloses an interface module counting the electrical pulses generated by a coin receiving switch. The Petition states: “Specifically, the objective inquiry reveals that it is only the ‘first interface module’ that is mentioned as counting one or more electrical pulses generated by the coin receiving switch.” Pet. 32; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 125 (corresponding testimony of Mr. Smith). In this regard, the ’608 patent states: In FIG. 28A, the first interface module 1522 is configured to sample payment acceptance signals from the microswitch 1502 (e.g., a coin receiving switch) via lead 1532 of the offline-payment operated machine 1500. For example, the payment acceptance signals are indicative of a coin being received by the microswitch 1502 which depress lever 1504. Ex. 1002, 40:35–40. The ’608 patent also describes FIG. 28B as illustrating signals sampled by the first interface module 1522, “[f]or example, the preset sequence of payment acceptance signals indicative of the preset number of coins include pulses (i.e., payment acceptance signals) 1552, 1554, 1556, and 1558.” Id. at 40:50–58; see also id. at 41:59–42:4 (“payment acceptance signals are indicative of a preset number of coins received by the coin receiving switch”); 42:49–55 (describing identifying a count of pulses). The ’608 patent further states: “[T]he terms used for labels (e.g., ‘first,’ ‘second,’ and ‘third’) are meant solely for purposes of designation and not for order or limitation.” Id. at 46:11–14. Claim 19, as originally filed, recited limitation (b), with the coin counting interface module being labeled as the second interface module. Ex. 1003, 283. Given the originally filed claim 19 and the above disclosures of the ’608 patent, Petitioner does not persuade us that the ’608 patent does not reasonably convey to skilled artisans that the patentee did not possess the claimed invention as of the filing date. Petitioner does not show sufficiently that claims 19–20 are more likely than not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,891,608
• Netskope, Inc. v. Bitglass, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00092 · APJ James J Mayberry · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 17–20 and 22–24, exercising discretion under § 324(a) because the parallel petitions were not justified.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence, we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that two petitions challenging the claims of the ’671 patent are not warranted under these circumstances. First, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner has provided us with no explanation as to why multiple petitions are necessary here, despite our guidance in the CTPG, which states that such an explanation should be provided at the time the multiple petitions are filed. See CTPG 59–61. As such, we are left with no justification for the two petitions from Petitioner to weigh against Patent Owner’s arguments. Second, we do not discern, based on our own review of the petitions, any reason why one petition would not have been sufficient to challenge the claims of the ’671 patent, given the substantial overlap in the subject matter of the claims. The ’671 patent has three independent claims. Ex. 1001, 13:61–17:9. Claim 1 is written as a method claim, claim 9 is written to cover “[o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” storing instructions of the method of claim 1, and claim 17 is written as a system implementing the method of claim 1. Id. at 13:65–14:17, 15:1–22, 16:12–38. The claims depending from these independent claims recite similar subject matter. Compare, e.g., 14:51–53 (claim 7), with 15:60–63 (claim 15) and 16:42–44 (claim 19) (reciting subject matter directed to the identity provider monitoring the operating status of the application proxy server).12 As Patent Owner argues, Dr. Franz’s testimony is repetitive, often referencing analysis directed to claim 1 and its challenged dependent claims in analyzing claim 17 and its challenged dependent claims. See, e.g., Ex. 100213 ¶¶ 140, 141, 143–146 (referencing the analysis of elements of claim 1 for elements of claim 17), ¶¶ 147–149 (referencing the analysis of claims 4 and 5 for claims 22 and 18/23). We recognize that Petitioner challenges the priority date of the ’671 patent. See Pet. 16–23; CTPG 59 (indicating a priority date dispute could justify multiple petitions). Also, one set of grounds depends, in part, on the priority date of the Challenged Claims. See Pet. 96–120 (challenging claims based on a reference in the priority chain of the ’671 patent). Petitioner does not, however, differentiate its petitions based on this issue—both petitions have identical grounds, most of which do not turn on the priority date of the Challenged Claims. See Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (“[A]lthough there is a priority 12 Additional overlap exists—as evidenced in a comparison of the combined recitations of claims 18 and 23 with claims 5 and 13, claim 19 with claims 7 and 15, claim 20 with claims 8 and 16, claim 22 with claims 4 and 12, and claim 24 with claims 6 and 14. Ex. 1001, 13:61–17:9. 13 Ex. 1002 is the same exhibit filed in both PGR2021-00091 and PGR2021- 00092. See Ex. 1002, title page. issue raised by the Petition, the Petitioner is not proposing alternate grounds based on different priority dates of the patent claims. Both petitions raise the same ground and have the same exact prior art combinations.”). Thus, the particular circumstances of this proceeding do not appear to warrant multiple petitions.” slip op. at 22

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,855,671
• Netskope, Inc. v. Bitglass, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00091 · APJ James J Mayberry · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 12–16; the Board found the petition showed a more-likely-than-not basis that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the Challenged Claims of the ’671 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsOther

    “II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion to deny the Petition in this proceeding, or the petition in PGR2021-00092. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner filed two petitions challenging the same patent without justifying the need for two petitions. Id. at 3–15. We exercise our discretion to not institute trial in PGR2021-00092, because Petitioner did not justify two petitions challenging the ’671 patent.13 In view of the denial of institution of PGR2021-00092, we need not consider further Patent Owner’s arguments on discretionary denial in this Decision.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not define the level of ordinary skill and, instead, states that we should “apply[] the Petition’s asserted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 44. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’671 patent, based on our review of the limited record.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Petitioner contends that no claim terms need an express construction. Pet. 25. Patent Owner states that “the Petition does not appear to present any issues that require the Board to construe the claims to resolve the issues at the institution stage.” Prelim. Resp. 44. We agree with the parties that, at least at this stage of the proceeding, we need not expressly construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,855,671
• Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Dynaenergetics Europe GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00089 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “We are authorized to institute a post-grant review where a petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged patent claim is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324. We are never compelled to institute a review, however, because institution is discretionary. Id.; cf. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”). As in an IPR proceeding, we deny post-grant review, for example, where a petition fails to identify “with particularity” the challenges or evidence supporting them. Cf. Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363; 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would be expected to have at least a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two years of industry experience related to assembling, operating, and/or designing perforating tools.” Pet. 10 (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 28). Patent Owner “believes that Petitioner’s definition suggests that a field technician who merely assembles guns could be a POSITA, which is incorrect,” and instead proposes “a POSITA would be expected to have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two (2) years of industry experience related to designing perforating gun systems.” Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 52). For the purposes of institution, we do not see a material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. Nonetheless, because Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the record, including the prior art, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner for purposes of this Decision. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 7

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

    “D. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2020). This standard requires that we construe claims “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim[s] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an AIA trial proceeding). Patent Owner proposes constructions for “shaped charge receptacle” and “retention mechanism extending from a portion of the body.” Prelim. Resp. 36–38; see also PO Sur-reply 1–5. In its Reply, Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Pet. Reply 2–3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires explicit construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In addition, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently explained its alternative argument based on the “simple substitution of the circular openings (for inserting the shaped charges) in Vann for the circular openings with tabs in Von Kaenel.” Pet. 90 (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 485). As an initial matter, Petitioner’s proposed substitution lacks sufficient clarity because it remains unclear which of Vann’s structures remain in the resulting combination. By emphasizing substitution of the “circular openings” alone in Vann, Petitioner suggests that Vann’s tabs 62 remain without explaining why the tabs are necessary if Von Kaenel’s tabs retain the shaped charges. See id. As discussed, Vann requires that the plurality of charge holders are placed in tandem and jointly cooperate together to make up a charge carrier 48. Ex. 1009, 5:50–56. To do so, tabs 62 formed by extended lateral edges 56, 58 are aligned in an overhanging relationship relative to the central lateral face 70 of the two adjacent charge holders. Id. at 6:61–64, Fig. 5. If the proposed combination employs Von Kaenel’s tabs to retain the charges, preserving the overhanging relationship of Vann’s tabs 62 to retain the charges would appear superfluous, and if Petitioner proposes retaining Vann’s tabs 62 but removing the overhanging relationship, Petitioner does not describe such a structure. In either case, a substitution of Vann’s circular openings alone while Vann’s tabs 62 remain in the resulting combination lacks adequate specificity and support. For completeness, we assess Petitioner’s argument based on the assumption that Petitioner proposes removing Vann’s tabs 62 entirely from the proposed combination. Per this theory, a POSITA would have simply substituted Von Kaenel’s side locking tabs 610 for Vann’s tabs 62 because a POSITA would have recognized the advantages of having the retention mechanisms be a part of the body in order reduce the number of tools and assembly required, to allow for differing offsets, as well as to simplify manufacturing, as discussed in each of Vann, Brooks, and Von Kaenel. Pet. 89–90 (emphasis added) (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 484; Ex. 1013, Abstract, 2:60–3:16, 5:20–41, 8:41–58; Ex. 1009, 1:18–21, 2:22–29, 1:66–67, 1:41– 43, 3:63–68, 4:14–24; Ex. 1010, 9:48–53, 1:52–64). However, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how this substitution would “simplify manufacturing” for Vann’s specific stacked formation. Indeed, Vann’s charge carrier is formed by a plurality of charge holders that jointly cooperate in tandem, which includes the cooperation of extended lateral edges that overhang the central lateral face of adjacent charge holders. See Ex. 1009, 6:61–64; Fig. 5. Substitution of Vann’s tabs 62 with Von Kaenel’s side locking tabs 610 would affect Vann’s tandem construction if tabs 62 are removed. See Pet. 80–95. More importantly, Petitioner has failed to explain adequately why a POSITA would have sought to make this combination to simplify manufacturing or reduce assembly given Vann’s specific charge carrier design, which is dependent on the overhanging relationship between separate, stacked charge holders. Id. Further, Mr. Parrott’s testimony is not helpful on this point. In paragraph 485 (cited by Petitioner), Mr. Parrott states that Von Kaenel’s tabs (retention mechanisms) would have been applied with ease to Vann’s perforating gun apparatus, which would have yielded predictable results. A POSITA would have recognized the combination as a simple substitution of the circular openings for inserting the shaped charges in Vann for the circular openings with tabs in Von Kaenel, and a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Parrott Decl. ¶ 485 (emphases added). Like the Petition, these statements by Mr. Parrott are conclusory and do not explain the basis for his conclusions. See id. Looking elsewhere, paragraph 484 mirrors statements and citations in the Petition, which as discussed, are insufficient. Id. ¶ 484. And although paragraph 483 articulates the advantages of using “Von Kaenel’s superior teachings in order to better achieve the goal of reliably securing and positioning the shaped charges,” Mr. Parrott neglects to explain the proposed substitution in the context of Vann’s specific charge carrier design that relies on the overhanging edges/tabs of the charge holders for the in tandem assembly and construction. Id. ¶ 483 (citing Ex. 1013, Fig. 6B, 8:59–67). The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention. Id. Here, Petitioner has failed to make the threshold showing for the” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,844,696
• Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Bosciences, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2021 · PGR2021-00088 · APJ John G New · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all five grounds, finding the petition did not show any challenged claim was likely unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board “may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless … the information presented in the petition … if such information is not rebutted would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence presently before us, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’908 patent. We consequently deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The Specification expressly teaches that, with respect to the clinical phase 2 trial described in Example 4, “Patients will have overnight [pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics] PK/PD assessments performed at baseline, which include an [sic] pre-dose overnight assessment and a post-dose overnight assessment for PK/PD following administration of the first dose.” Ex. 1001 col. 42, ll. 12–16. This is the same quotation and clinical trial relied upon by Dr. Barnes in his Declaration, and is the only definition of a “baseline” in the ’908 patent. See Ex. 1002, 36–37. We note that placebos were evidently not employed in the phase 2 clinical study of Example 4.3 Given the sole exemplary description of “baseline” in Example 4 of the Specification, we construe the claim term reciting “reduced by at least 10% from baseline” as meaning “a reduction of at least 10% in the level of ACTH (claim 1) or 17-OHP (claim 11) compared to measurements of ACTH or 17-OHP made prior to, and/or at the beginning of, administration of the drug.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “likely than not that independent claims 1 and 11 are anticipated by Grigoriadis. “For a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The single clinical trial taught by Example 6 of Grigoriadis does not establish a baseline value for patients against which to compare the data obtained from patients receiving 300 mg or 600 mg of the test drug, NBI- 77860 (verucerfont). See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 90–94. Specifically, Example 6 does not establish a baseline “which include[s] an [sic] pre-dose overnight assessment and a post-dose overnight assessment for PK/PD following administration of the first dose,” as disclosed by the ’908 patent. See Ex. 1001, col. 42, ll. 12–16. We therefore conclude that Grigoriadis fails to disclose expressly the limitations of claims 1 and 11 severally reciting “wherein [the] … hormone … level in the human is reduced by at least 10 % from baseline.”” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference may anticipate if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed is inherently disclosed because it “is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question”).” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,849,908
• Bluecatbio Ma Inc. v. Yantai Ausbio Laboratories Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2021 · PGR2020-00051 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · PGR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 3–5, 7, 10–12, and 14–20 unpatentable because the Gyro Washer was not shown to drive all or nearly all expelled liquid to the drain.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that Patent Owner’s additions are supported by the ’063 Patent. Patent Owner directs us to portions of the Specification that discuss immunoassays, magnetic bead assays, and cellular assays, as well as the need to avoid cross-contamination for these types of reactions. PO Resp. 14; Ex. 1001, 1:24–28, 3:43–45; 3:63–66, 4:25–32, 13:25–50, 15:52– 16:2, 19:41–59. We find that these disclosures support Patent Owner’s contention that a POSA would have been aware of the operational requirements of reaction vessel unit washing devices, methods used to cross-contamination. For these reasons, we apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSA as modified by Patent Owner’s additions. Pet. 16; PO Resp. 15.4” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction stays true to the claim language. PO Sur-reply 5. As just discussed, “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing” refers back to an earlier part of the claim that recites that rotating the rotor (referred to in claim 12 as inner surface of the housing. Ex. 1001, 24:5–8, 25:5–7. Claims 1 and 12 recite “the expelled liquid” without any modifier, such as “at least some.” In our view, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the claim language because the antecedent for “the expelled liquid” is the liquid that is expelled from the reaction vessel onto the inner surface of the housing, not merely some portion of that liquid. Nothing in the claim language suggests that “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing” is divisible, with some of the liquid being driven by the wind to the drain and some of the liquid not being driven by the wind to the drain. For example, we see no support in the claim language for Petitioner’s argument that “the first expelled milliliter qualifies as ‘liquid . . . expelled,’ and the second milliliter also qualifies as ‘liquid . . . expelled,’ and so on.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 65). Although “all or nearly all” is not expressly recited in the claim, neither is “some.” As between these two constructions, “all or nearly all” more closely aligns with the language and structure of claims 1 and 12, including the antecedent for “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing,” which in our view refers to the undivided whole of the liquid.6” slip op. at 15

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

    “5. Weighing the Evidence For all of the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Gyro Washer generates a wind that drives to the drain “all or nearly all of the liquid expelled from the reaction vessel onto the inner surface of the housing,” as required by our claim construction. More particularly, we find that the photos and observations of the Gyro Washer and microplates after completion of a wash cycle, as discussed in subsection 2 above, show that a substantial amount of the liquid expelled from a microplate onto the inner surface of the housing is not driven by the wind to the drain of the Gyro Washer. We find that this evidence outweighs the other evidence relied upon by Petitioner to show that the wind limitation is met, including the videos and observations of the Gyro Washer in operation, as discussed in subsection 1 above, Petitioner’s droplet experiments, as discussed in subsection 3 above, and Petitioner’s bucket experiments, as discussed in subsection 4 above.” slip op. at 48

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

    “dependent claim 10, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to use an aspiration pump with the Gyro Washer. Pet. 104–105 (relying on evidence that a Gyro Washer was sold with an aspiration pump). For dependent claims 7 and 17, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to modify the Gyro Washer so that the rotor is rotated in a second rotational direction. Pet. 105–108, 114. For method claims 12 and 14–17, Petitioner contends that, even in the absence of Mr. Yagi’s demonstrations of the Gyro Washer at the 2009 and 2010 trade shows, the method of using the Gyro Washer would have been obvious in view of the device itself and that the limitations claims 12 and 14–16 are satisfied by the natural, ordinary, and intended use of the Gyro Washer. Pet. 108–114. Petitioner’s contentions do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s arguments and evidence addressing the wind limitation, as discussed above. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claims 7, 10, 12 and 14–17 would have been obvious in view of the Gyro Washer.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 10,338,063 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,338,063
• Sattler Tech Corporation v. Yaqi LyuInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2021 · PGR2021-00095 · APJ Scott A Daniels · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR challenging the sole claim because Sattler had filed a civil action challenging that claim’s validity before filing the petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied

    “Sattler filed this Petition for post grant review of the ’645 patent on June 9, 2021. Approximately two months prior, on April 15, 2021, Sattler filed the Virginia lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the claim of the ’645 patent is invalid based on prior art sales and activity prior to October 18, 2019. See Ex. 3002; see also Ex. 3001 ¶¶ 15, 25(a). Because the Board may not institute a post grant review of a challenged patent when the petitioner filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the date on which the petition for review is filed, we deny the Petition in all respects. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDenied

    “Sattler filed this Petition for post grant review of the ’645 patent on June 9, 2021. Approximately two months prior, on April 15, 2021, Sattler filed the Virginia lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the claim of the ’645 patent is invalid based on prior art sales and activity prior to October 18, 2019. See Ex. 3002; see also Ex. 3001 ¶¶ 15, 25(a). Because the Board may not institute a post grant review of a challenged patent when the petitioner filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the date on which the petition for review is filed, we deny the Petition in all respects. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
• Precision Power, LLC v. Powertec Solutions International, LLCAdverse judgment
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · PGR2021-00043 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · PGR · Adverse judgment

  The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner after it abandoned the contest; claims 1–7 were canceled and the proceeding terminated.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “Our rules provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Moreover, certain actions taken by a party, such as “[a]bandonment of the contest,” can be construed as a request for adverse judgment against that party. Id. § 42.73(b)(4). Although we instituted a trial, we have not yet decided the merits of this proceeding. Accordingly, we enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) and terminate the trial pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. It is: ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner; FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,637,264” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 10,637,264
• Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., And The P.F. Laboratories Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2021 · PGR2018-00048 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable for lack of written description and anticipation by the ’943 Publication; indefiniteness and lack of enablement were not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded that exclusion of the cited portions of Dr. Chambliss’ testimony or Exhibits 1073, 1074, 1075, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1088, and 1090 is warranted. While the parties disagree on the merits of Dr. Chambliss’ testimony as to whether PGGs were known to be gelling agents by persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Priority Applications, Patent Owner does not persuade us that Dr. Chambliss fails to support his testimony with any reasonable logical or scientific basis. The exhibits that Patent Owner seeks to exclude, which include a patent, technical references, and a journal article, are relevant to the inquiry Dr. Chambliss performed in forming his opinion. We therefore do not see a basis for exclusion under FRE 702/703 or 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Moreover, we find this evidence both admissible and relevant as it concerns a fundamental issue for our patentability analysis. Thus, we decline to exclude the evidence under FRE 401 or 402.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have possessed “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, and/or pharmacology and a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 82). Petitioner further proposes that “[i]f the degree is a Ph.D[.], then the required industry experience need not be significant, e.g., two years or more, but if the technical degree is a B.S. or M.S., then the industry experience would be more significant, e.g., five years or more.” Id. We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s definition of a POSA’s skill level in our Institution Decision as it was undisputed at the time and consistent with the evidence of record. Inst. Dec. 7–8. Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner addresses the level of ordinary skill in the art in the post-institution briefing. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a POSA herein and have also taken into account the level of skill reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Applying this level of skill, we find that Dr. Chambliss and Dr. Constantinides are qualified to provide opinions as to the perspective and knowledge of a POSA. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 58–63.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims recite methods of making formulations using recited features and ingredients. In addition, as we stated in our Decision on Institution, “[t]he claims define abuse deterrence in terms of when the dosage form is ‘subjected to t[a]mpering comprising heating at a temperature greater than about 45° C.’” Inst. Dec. 19 (quoting Ex. 1001, 41:50–52). Additionally, the claims and specification identify specific ingredients that can purportedly help achieve this abuse deterrence functionality. Id. Given these conclusions, further construction of “abuse deterrent,” which both parties generally agree relates to methods of making the drug dosage form less likely to be abused, is not necessary to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “Notwithstanding these individual teachings, we find that the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventors of the ’961 patent possessed a dosage form comprising a combination of the recited components that also satisfied the recited functionality. We are persuaded that the specification fails to provide sufficient guidance that would have led the POSA to create the recited dosage form. See Fujikawan 93 F.3d at 1571; In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967). Rather, “one is left to select[] from the myriads of possibilities encompassed by the broad disclosure, with no guide indicating or directing that this particular selection should be made rather than any of the many others which could also be made.” Ruschig, 379 F.2d at 995.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,693,961 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,693,961

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.